Global-Tech developed a deep fryer after studying features of a competitor's product, then sold it through customers. It was not aware that the competitor's fryer was patented. The competitor sued the customers for infringement of its patent, and sued Global-Tech for actively inducing the infringement, as specified in 35 U.S.C. Sec. 271(b). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that it is legally sufficient to prove active-inducement infringement if the company showed "deliberate indifference" about patent infringement.
The Supreme Court decided that a stricter test requiring actual knowledge of the patent being infringed is necessary to prove induced infringement. Thus, deliberate indifference to a known risk that a patent exists does not satisfy the knowledge requirement. However, in this case, the Court affirmed the lower court's conclusion that there was infringement of the patent, under the doctrine of willful blindness. To be liable, the infringer must subjectively believe that a fact exists (such as the existence of a patent), and he must take deliberate actions to avoid learning of that fact. The Court's decision requiring actual knowledge, or willful blindness, will make it harder for patent holders to prove infringement. However, it is helpful for the Court to clarify these kinds of state-of-mind issues (intent), which are regularly at issue in litigation affecting manufacturers.