Term: 2014
Docket: 13-896
Commil Usa, Llc v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
- Pro
13-896 COMMIL USA V. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. DECISION BELOW: 720 F.3d 1361 LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. JUSTICE BREYER TOOK NO PART. CERT. GRANTED 12/5/2014 QUESTION PRESENTED: Commil holds a patent teaching a method to implement short-range wireless networks. At trial, the jury returned a verdict that Commil's patent was valid, that Cisco directly infringed but did not induce infringement, and awarded damages. Because Cisco's counsel invoked stereotypes about Commil's Jewish owner and inventors during trial, the district court found the verdict "inconsistent with substantial justice" and ordered a new trial on inducement and damages only. At the second trial, the jury returned a verdict that Cisco induced infringement and awarded damages. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded for a third trial on two grounds. First, although Commil's patent is valid, the Federal Circuit held that Cisco's "good faith belief” that the patent was invalid is a defense to induced infringement. Second, although Cisco had actual knowledge of Commil's patent, the Federal Circuit held that this Court's opinion in Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 131 S. Ct. 2060 (2011) rendered erroneous and prejudicial the jury instruction based on DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that a defendant's belief that a patent is invalid is a defense to induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). 2. Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., . 131 S. Ct. 2060 (2011) required retrial on the issue of intent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) where the jury (1) found the defendant had actual knowledge of the patent and (2) was instructed that "[i]nducing third-party infringement cannot occur unintentionally." LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 2012-1042
The U.S. Supreme Court case Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 2014 revolved around patent infringement allegations by Commil against Cisco Systems. The key issue was whether a defendant's belief regarding the validity of a patent could be used as defense in an induced infringement suit. In this case, Cisco believed that the patent held by Commil was invalid and thus did not consider its actions to constitute infringement. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Commil stating that a defendant’s belief about a patent’s validity is not relevant to determining whether it has infringed upon said patent or induced others to do so.
In the dissenting opinion for COMMIL USA, LLC v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Justice Scalia argued that a defendant's belief regarding patent validity is relevant to the issue of induced infringement. He disagreed with the majority’s view that separating issues of infringement and validity would simplify matters. Instead, he believed it could complicate litigation because defendants may be found liable for inducing actions they believed were lawful at the time. Furthermore, he expressed concern about increasing inadvertent inducements by removing good-faith belief in invalidity as a defense. Lastly, Justice Scalia criticized the majority's reliance on tort law principles to justify its decision since patent law has traditionally followed its own rules.
