On September 14, 2015, the original three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit in Suprema, Inc. v. ITC, Appeal No. 2012-1170, issued a nonprecedential Opinion affirming the Commission’s finding of a violation of Section 337 and issuance of an exclusion order. As this publication previously reported, the en banc Federal Circuit upheld the Commission’s position that trade relief is available under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B)(i) for induced infringement based on the importation of goods that, after importation, are used by the importer to directly infringe at the inducement of the goods’ seller. The appeal had been remanded to the original panel for further proceedings consistent with the August 10, 2015 en banc Opinion. On remand, the panel reinstated its previous rulings affirming the Commission’s non-infringement ruling with respect to the first asserted patent and ruling that Suprema infringes and failed to prove invalid the second asserted patent. With respect to the third asserted patent, which was the subject of the en bancOpinion, the panel affirmed the Commission’s ruling that Mentalix directly infringes, and that Suprema is liable for induced infringement due to willful blindness of Mentalix’s infringement, finding substantial evidence in the record to support the Commission’s rulings. With respect to willful blindness, noting its deferential standard of review, the panel stated that “[n]one of the facts upon which the Commission relied, in isolation, would support a finding of willful blindness,” but that the totality of the evidence, including evidence of Suprema’s “extensive market research on its competitors,” including research on Cross Match’s patents, adequately supported the Commission’s finding. The panel rejected arguments that the Commission’s ruling would require manufacturers to research every reference referred to in a competitor’s patents to avoid willful blindness, stating that it did “not hold that such an exhaustive patent search is required in every instance,” nor that the Commission “predicated its willful blindness finding only upon such an obligation.”