Supreme Court Says Good-Faith Belief in Patent Invalidity No Defense to a Charge of Inducing Infringement

Supreme Court Says Good-Faith Belief in Patent Invalidity No Defense to a Charge of Inducing Infringement

Four years ago, in Global-Tech Appliances v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. ___ (2011), the U.S. Supreme Court held that in order to prove that a defendant in a patent case had induced another person or entity's infringement, it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove that the alleged inducer (i) knew of the patent and (ii) knew that the induced acts were infringing. In its 2013 decision in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., a divided panel of the Federal Circuit interpreted Global-Tech as compelling a new rule of patent litigation—that an accused infringer's good-faith belief that a patent is invalid "may negate the requisite intent for induced infringement." 720 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Five Federal Circuit judges—just short of the majority needed—would have granted en banc review of the Commil decision.

The Supreme Court, however, did grant review, and on May 26, 2015, it vacated the Federal Circuit's decision by a 6–2 vote, holding that "belief in invalidity will not negate the scienter required under [35 U.S.C.] § 271(b)," the induced-infringement statute. Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, dissented, observing that, in his view, the Court's decision "increases the in terrorem power of patent trolls." (Justice Breyer was recused and thus did not participate in the decision.)

The Commil decision is significant on a number of fronts. Most notably, it changes the rule of law applicable to claims of induced infringement and removes the defense created by the Federal Circuit's now-vacated decision. Moreover, it represents yet another in a long and mostly uninterrupted string of Supreme Court decisions reversing or otherwise upsetting the Federal Circuit's patent decisions. But, as Justice Scalia's dissent points out, the decision also represents one of the Supreme Court's few patent decisions in recent years ruling in favor of a patent owner.

A forthcoming Jones Day Commentary will explore this decision and its consequences in greater detail.

Lawyer Contacts

For further information, please contact your principal Firm representative or one of the lawyers listed below. General email messages may be sent using our "Contact Us" form, which can be found at

Gregory A. Castanias

John J. Normile
New York

Greg Lanier
Silicon Valley

Calvin P. Griffith

David L. Witcoff

Jones Day publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information purposes only and may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the Firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our "Contact Us" form, which can be found on our website at The mailing of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Firm.