Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P invented a “cool-touch” deep fryer, that is, a deep fryer for home use with external surfaces that remain cool during the frying process. P obtained a U. S. patent for its design in 1991, and sometime later, P started manufacturing the cool-touch fryer and selling under its well-known “T-Fal” brand. It was a commercial success. Sunbeam asked D to supply it with deep fryers meeting certain specifications. D purchased a P fryer in Hong Kong and copied all but its cosmetic features. The unit bore no U. S. patent markings as it was manufactured for sale in Asia. After copying P's design, D retained an attorney to conduct a right-to-use study. D did not tell the attorney that its design was copied directly from P's. The attorney failed to locate P's patent, and in August 1997 he issued an opinion letter stating that D's deep fryer did not infringe any of the patents that he had found. That same month, D started selling its deep fryers to Sunbeam, which resold them in the United States under its trademarks. Sunbeam was able to undercut P in the U. S. market. P sued Sunbeam. Sunbeam notified D of the lawsuit. D went on to sell deep fryers to Fingerhut Corp. and Montgomery Ward & Co., both of which resold them in the United States under their respective trademarks. P settled the lawsuit with Sunbeam, and then sued D, asserting direct infringement under §271(a), by selling or offering to sell its deep fryers; and second, under §271(b) by actively inducing Sunbeam, Fingerhut, and Montgomery Ward to sell or to offer to sell D's deep fryers in violation of P's patent rights. The jury found for P on both theories and also found that D's infringement had been willful. D argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of induced infringement under §271(b) because Pentalpha did not actually know of P's patent until it received the notice of the Sunbeam lawsuit. The court rejected D's argument and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. The Federal Circuit stated that induced infringement under §271(b) requires a “plaintiff [to] show that the alleged infringer knew or should have known that his actions would induce actual infringements” and that this showing includes proof that the alleged infringer knew of the patent. The court found adequate evidence to support a finding that “D deliberately disregarded a known risk that P had a protective patent.” The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co