Global-Tech Appliances v. SEB S.A. — Induced Infringement Requires Knowledge of the Patent; Willful Blindness Suffices

Background

French company SEB S.A. invented a deep fryer with a cool-touch exterior and obtained a U.S. patent. Pentalpha Enterprises, a Hong Kong subsidiary of Global-Tech Appliances, was hired to manufacture a competing deep fryer for Sunbeam. Pentalpha purchased an SEB fryer in Hong Kong — where it bore no U.S. patent markings — copied virtually all of its non-cosmetic features, and hired a patent attorney to conduct a right-to-use opinion without disclosing that its design had been copied directly from SEB’s product.

SEB sued Pentalpha for patent infringement. After learning of SEB’s patent through the lawsuit against Sunbeam — which settled — Pentalpha continued selling the fryers to other customers. A jury found Pentalpha liable for actively inducing infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b), and the Federal Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address what knowledge is required for induced infringement liability.

The Court’s Holding

Justice Alito, writing for eight of nine justices, held that induced infringement under §271(b) requires actual knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement. The Court rejected the argument that only “deliberate indifference” to a known risk suffices — that standard is too weak.

However, the Court held that the doctrine of willful blindness satisfies the knowledge requirement. A party is willfully blind when it (1) subjectively believes there is a high probability that a fact exists, and (2) takes deliberate actions to avoid learning of that fact. On the facts, Pentalpha’s decision to copy SEB’s product and then seek a right-to-use opinion without disclosing the copying was a classic case of willful blindness — Pentalpha deliberately avoided confirming that the fryer was patented in the United States.

Key Takeaways

• Induced infringement under §271(b) requires knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement — mere deliberate indifference is insufficient.
• Willful blindness satisfies the knowledge requirement: defendants cannot escape liability by deliberately avoiding confirmation of patent infringement.
• Companies that copy a competitor’s product and then obtain a freedom-to-operate opinion without disclosing the copying risk willful blindness findings.
• The willful blindness standard mirrors criminal law doctrine and imports a subjective belief component alongside the deliberate avoidance requirement.

Why It Matters

Global-Tech closed a loophole that sophisticated infringers might otherwise exploit: the idea that a company could learn of a patent lawsuit involving a copied product, continue selling to other customers, and escape induced infringement liability simply by claiming it lacked formal knowledge of the patent. The willful blindness doctrine prevents defendants from constructing an “ostrich defense” by deliberately looking the other way.

The ruling matters for any company that manufactures products based on a competitor’s design, licenses technology, or supplies components used by downstream infringers. It reinforces that companies have an affirmative obligation not to deliberately avoid learning whether their products infringe, and that patent right-to-use opinions must be based on full and honest disclosure to the opinion attorney.