Supreme Court Decision and Implications of Global-Tech Appliances Inc. v. SEB SA

Arlington, Va. (October 6, 2011)– Make no mistake about it: Innovation is at the heart of enterprise, and innovative ideas and technologies rely on patent protections to prevent patent infringement. That’s why the recent Supreme Court decision in Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB, S.A. which adopted willful blindness as the standard for induced infringement is raising eyebrows around patent enforcement entities domestically and abroad. While this decision seeks 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 wrestle with.

Gain a deeper understanding of this decision and its practical implications for litigators, patentees and businesses alike. Register now for BNA’s upcoming Webinar, Induced Infringement After Global-Tech v. SEB, October 11 at 1:00 p.m. Robert Scheffel, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP, and Brian Pandya, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP, will discuss the court’s interpretation of willful blindness including a defendant’s belief that a patent exists and a defendant’s deliberate actions to avoid uncovering the patent and how this interpretation may be used in future proceedings.

While Global-Tech Appliances Inc. v. SEB SA focused on SEB’s charge that Global-Tech violated its 1991 patent for its cool-touch fryer, thus creating a competing product and capturing market share, the court held that that induced infringement under § 271(b) requires knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement.

This 90-minute webinar will address pressing questions related to this ruling including:

• When a defendant subjectively believes they are not infringing a patent, under what circumstances can they 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?        

Webinar attendees are also eligible for CLE credit. 

About the Speakers: 

Robert Scheffel
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
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. 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.