Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.
2011 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case.[1] The case considered whether a party, in order to "actively [induce] infringement of a patent" under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b),[2] must know that the induced act constitutes patent infringement, or whether deliberate indifference to the existence of a patent can be considered a form of actual knowledge. In an 8–1 decision delivered by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court held that induced infringement requires knowledge of patent infringement, but because the petitioners had knowledge of a patent infringement lawsuit involving the respondent and Sunbeam Products over the same invention, the Federal Circuit's judgement that petitioners induced infringement must be affirmed under the doctrine of willful blindness.[1]
Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. | |
---|---|
Argued February 23, 2011 Decided May 31, 2011 | |
Full case name | Global-Tech Appliances, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. SEB S.A. |
Docket no. | 10-6 |
Citations | 563 U.S. 754 (more) |
Case history | |
Prior | SEB SA v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 594 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2010); cert. granted, 562 U.S. 960 (2010). |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Alito, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan |
Dissent | Kennedy |
Laws applied | |
35 U.S.C. § 271(b) |
Justice Anthony Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion.[3]