|Because the AmeriKat does not believe|
she is doing anything wrong, does this give her a defence
to destroying a toilet paper roll?
“Cisco actually intended to cause the acts that constitute . . . direct infringement and that Cisco knew or should have known that its actions would induce actual infringement.”
|Cisco looks forward to the retrial.|
|The US Supreme Court|
|A welcome opponent to bifurcation? |
Justice Scalia thinks infringing
an invalid patent is nonsense.
1. Induced infringement requires knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement (see Global-Tech).
2. Only valid patents can be infringed.
3. Anyone with a good-faith belief in a patent's invalidity, necessarily believes the patent cannot be infringed.
4. It is impossible for anyone who believes the patent cannot be infringed to induce actions that he knows will infringe it.
5. A good faith belief that a patent is invalid is therefore a defence to induced infringement of that patent.
"Ours is not a common-law court. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64, 78 (1938). We do not, or at least should not, create defenses to statutory liability—and that is not what this dissent purports to do. Our task is to interpret the Patent Act, and to decide whether it makes a good-faith belief in a patent’s invalidity a defense to induced infringement. Since, as we said in Global-Tech, supra, the Act makes knowledge of infringement a requirement for induced-infringement liability; and since there can be no infringement (and hence no knowledge of infringement) of an invalid patent; goodfaith belief in invalidity is a defense."
|Patent for a troll, does not make a patent troll.|
"If frivolous cases are filed in federal court, it is within the power of the court to sanction attorneys for bringing such suits. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 11. It is also within the district court’s discretion to award attorney’s fees to prevailing parties in “exceptional cases.” 35 U. S. C. §285; see also Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572U. S. ___, ___–___ (2014) (slip op., at 7–8). These safeguards, combined with the avenues that accused inducers have to obtain rulings on the validity of patents, militate in favor of maintaining the separation expressed throughout the Patent Act between infringement and validity. This dichotomy means that belief in invalidity is no defense to a claim of induced infringement. "
|Key message: Be proactive in invalidating patents, |
not reactive in saying you thought the patent