Senior Communications Manager
Brian Pandya Discusses Supreme Court Ruling in Patent Infringement Case
Brian H. Pandya, a partner in Wiley Rein’s Intellectual Property and Litigation practices, was quoted by Law360, Bloomberg BNA, Forbes, and Policy and Regulatory Report in coverage of this week’s ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States in an important patent infringement case.
In a 6-2 decision in Commil USA LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc., the Supreme Court found that a good-faith belief that a patent is invalid is not a defense to induced infringement, according to Law360, which quoted Mr. Pandya in three articles this week. The Justices also held that because infringement and validity are separate issues, believing that a patent is invalid is no defense to inducement. It therefore vacated a Federal Circuit ruling that created such a defense. However, the Court confirmed that inducement requires an actual intent to induce infringement, rather than just intent to induce the actions that happen to constitute patent infringement.
“Today’s decision has a bit of everything for everyone,” Mr. Pandya said. “On balance, I think this decision will make it slightly more difficult to prove induced infringement, even though the invalidity defense was taken off the table.”
In a May 26 Bloomberg BNA article, Mr. Pandya said, “This is the Supreme Court telling Congress to put the brakes on patent reform, as district courts and the Federal Circuit have tools to combat abuses.”
The ruling also provides “a helpful clarification” of the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in Global Tech v. SEB, that a good-faith belief that a patent is invalid cannot negate an intent to induce infringement, Mr. Pandya told Policy and Regulatory Report in a May 27 article. “Most patent lawyers suspected that this was case, but that was admittedly an open question,” he said.