We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search

Refine your search

Content type

Tags

Author

5 results found

Article

Hogan Lovells | USA | 21 Jul 2011

A defendant’s willful blindness can satisfy the knowledge required for active inducement of patent infringement

The U.S. Supreme Court found that a defendant’s “deliberate indifference” to a potential patent did not satisfy the “knowledge” required to prove active inducement of patent infringement.

Article

Hogan Lovells | USA | 3 Jun 2011

Indirect patent infringement and Global-Tech

On May 31, 2011 the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Federal Circuit's application of its "deliberate indifference" test in SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360 (2010), was inappropriate to establish the knowledge required for inducement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b), but that a defendant's "willful blindness" could, alternatively, be used to satisfy this knowledge requirement.

Article

Hogan Lovells | USA | 3 Jun 2011

Indirect patent infringement and Global-Tech

On May 31, 2011 the U.On May 31, 2011 the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Federal Circuit's application of its "deliberate indifference" test in SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360 (2010), was inappropriate to establish the knowledge required for inducement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b), but that a defendant's "willful blindness" could, alternatively, be used to satisfy this knowledge requirement.

Previous page 1 Next page