Skip Page Banner  
Skip Navigation

Induced Infringement After Global-Tech v. SEB


Product Code - LGAU02
Speaker(s): Robert Scheffel, Wiley Rein LLP; Brian Pandya, Wiley Rein LLP
Add To Cart
View the Brochure
Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Global-Tech Appliances Inc. v. SEB SA, addressing the standards for inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271. In an 8-to-1 decision authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the court held "that induced infringement under section 271(b) requires knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement." In doing so, the Court rejected the "deliberate indifference to a known risk" standard articulated by the Federal Circuit in favor of a more stringent "willful blindness" standard. While this decision sought to bring clarity to section 271(b), the newly articulated willful blindness standard leaves plenty of questions for the district courts and Federal Circuit to address.

The webinar will discuss in detail the Supreme Court decision, the cases leading up to this point, and district court decisions that have applied the new standard.

Educational Objectives:

• When a defendant subjectively believes it is not infringing a patent, under what circumstances can it be found to be inducing infringement?

• How will the doctrine of willful blindness creep into other areas of patent law, such as willful infringement?

• In light of recent cases finding no direct infringement when steps of a patent are performed by multiple parties, when can patentees now assert that a single mastermind is inducing such distributed infringement?

Who would benefit from attending the proposed webinar?

In-house counsel that regularly defend lawsuits filed by non-practicing entities alleging that their companies’ customers are inducing infringement of method patents; outside patent litigators that defend, particularly those defending cases in the software and electronics fields.

Robert Scheffel, Wiley Rein LLP; Brian Pandya, Wiley Rein LLP

Robert Scheffel / Wiley Rein LLP

Robert Scheffel is a Partner at Wiley Rein LLP in Washington, D.C. Mr. Scheffel specializes in patent litigation, with extensive experience in pharmaceutical (Hatch-Waxman Act) and biotechnology litigation, and has significant experience in all phases of litigation, from pre-complaint investigation through trial and appeal. He has represented clients in a broad variety of venues and has broad experience in other intellectual property litigation, prosecution and counseling.

Mr. Scheffel earned a J.D. from Franklin Pierce Law Center and a B.S. from the University of Colorado.

Brian Pandya / Wiley Rein LLP

Brian Pandya is an Associate at Wiley Rein LLP in Washington, D.C. Mr. Pandya’s practice focuses on patent litigation and counseling. He has litigated patent cases involving a variety of technologies, including electronics, computer software, biotechnology, and pharmaceuticals. Mr. Pandya has been involved in bet-the-company patent suits as well as multi-defendant lawsuits filed by non-practicing entities. Prior to joining Wiley Rein, Mr. Pandya clerked for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Mr. Pandya earned a J.D., cum laude, from the University of Michigan Law School and a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, with honors and high distinction, from The Pennsylvania State University.

BNA provides registered webinar attendees with continuing legal education (CLE) credit processing services. To expedite this service, please complete and submit the online CLE request form available at http://attend.bna.com. Be sure to submit your online application for CLE within seven calendar days after the webinar. If you do not complete your online application during the processing period, we are unable to guarantee that your CLE application will be processed.

CLE applications require the following information: full name of and contact information for the requesting attorney, including e-mail address, phone number, fax number, bar number(s), and the state(s) in which the attorney would like credit.

The approval process may take approximately three to four months in some states. Attendees will be notified electronically via the e-mail address provided on the online application regarding the final status of his or her CLE application. Any person applying for CLE credit must have paid for and attended the webinar from start to finish. Attendance will be tracked for compliance purposes.

States Not Granting Credit

Please be advised that BNA webinars are subject to approval from each CLE-issuing organization and approval is not guaranteed. The following state bar associations currently do not grant CLE credit for BNA webinars:

• Delaware
• Indiana
• Kansas
• Nebraska
• Ohio
• Pennsylvania

“Non-Reporting” States

The following states are considered “non-reporting” states, meaning they do not require continuing legal education, so there is no formal state or district-mandated application process available. However, BNA will provide a certificate of attendance to individuals requesting documentation for their personal records.

• Connecticut
• District of Columbia
• Maryland
• Massachusetts
• Michigan
• South Dakota

Hardship Policy

BNA offers a hardship policy for any attorney earning less than $30,000 per year. If an attorney wishes to take advantage of this option, he or she must do so in writing and also provide proof of hardship. If approval is granted, a discount of 50% off the full registration price of the program will be awarded.

Questions?

For more information about Mandatory or Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) requirements, visit the American Bar Association website at http://www.abanet.org/cle/mandatory.html.

If you have further questions regarding how to file for CLE credit, please contact us directly at 800-952-2477.