United States: Supreme Court Rejects Good-Faith Belief Of Invalidity Defense To Claims Of Inducement Of Patent Infringement

Last Updated: June 2 2015
Article by Claire Laporte and Jeremy A. Younkin

The Decision in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a party's good-faith belief in the invalidity of a patent is not a defense to a claim that the party has induced infringement of the patent. Inducement claims arise in a variety of situations, often where a patent contains method claims. For example, the owner of a patent claiming a method may accuse a company of inducing an end user to infringe the patent by performing the claimed method. Commil had won a jury verdict that Cisco had induced Cisco's customers to infringe Commil's patent, which claimed a method of implementing wireless networks.

The ruling was good news for owners of patents—especially patents with method claims—who feared that a decision establishing a "good-faith belief of invalidity" defense would significantly hinder their ability to enforce their patents. But companies that frequently are accused by non-practicing entities of inducing infringement of patent claims of dubious validity will be disappointed by the decision.

Under the Patent Act, "[w]hoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer." 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). While the statute does not address the intent of an inducer, the Supreme Court had previously ruled that "at least some intent is required." Just four years ago, in Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., the Supreme Court held that an inducer must have "knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement."

At the Supreme Court, Cisco argued that it lacked the requisite intent because it believed in good faith that the asserted patent was invalid. Cisco had persuaded the Federal Circuit in 2013 that "evidence of an accused inducer's good-faith belief of invalidity may negate the requisite intent for induced infringement."

In a 6-2 opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court reversed. The Court held that the intent necessary to find inducement liability is an intent to infringe; thus, a defendant's belief that it is not causing its customer to infringe is relevant to show the lack of requisite intent. But a defendant's belief about the validity or invalidity of the patent is not relevant to that intent. The Court noted that invalidity is an affirmative defense to a claim of patent infringement and that a defendant who prevails on that defense will not be liable for patent infringement. "That is because invalidity is not a defense to infringement, it is a defense to liability. And because of that fact, a belief as to invalidity cannot negate the scienter required for induced infringement." The Court also reasoned that a "good-faith belief of invalidity" defense would undermine the presumption that patents are valid.

The Court enumerated several practical reasons to reject a "good-faith belief of invalidity" defense. The Court pointed out that accused inducers who believe that an asserted patent is invalid can attempt to invalidate the patent through a declaratory judgment action, inter partes review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, reexamination at the Patent Office, or as a defense to a patent infringement suit. The Court also stated that a "good-faith belief of invalidity" defense would make patent litigation more burdensome and costly.

In response to arguments made by both Commil (the patent owner) and the Solicitor General about the proper interpretation of Global-Tech, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that an inducement claim "requires proof the defendant knew the acts were infringing," not merely proof that the defendant knew of the asserted patent.

The Court closed its opinion by acknowledging the problem of frivolous patent suits brought to obtain a nuisance value settlement, and it urged lower courts to dissuade such conduct by imposing sanctions under Rule 11 and awarding attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 when appropriate. "These safeguards," the majority wrote, "combined with the avenues that accused inducers have to obtain rulings on the validity of patents, militate in favor of maintaining the separation expressed throughout the Patent Act between infringement and validity. This dichotomy means that belief in invalidity is no defense to a claim of induced infringement."

Justice Breyer did not participate in the case; Justice Scalia dissented, joined by Chief Justice Roberts. Justice Thomas did not join in all aspects of the majority decision.

Implications for Patent Litigation

The Commil decision has important implications for patent litigation. First, the decision reaffirms that parties may assert a "good-faith belief of non-infringement" defense to inducement claims. Accordingly, a party that is (or could be) accused of inducing infringement should carefully analyze whether the induced acts actually infringe. If they do not, the accused inducer should develop admissible evidence of its belief of non-infringement, such as an opinion of counsel, and of its good faith reliance on that belief.

Second, because parties will not be able to assert a "good-faith belief of invalidity defense" to inducement allegations, owners of patents drawn to method claims do not need to contend with yet another obstacle to establishing inducement liability. As noted above, the Court in Global-Tech held that a party could be liable for inducement only if it knew that it was inducing acts that infringed. And as the Federal Circuit recently reiterated in its decision following remand from the Supreme Court in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., a party cannot establish infringement of a method claim without showing that all steps of the claim were performed by or attributable to a single entity. The Commil Court's refusal to give accused inducers another defense will benefit companies that have valuable method patents, such as patents directed to methods of diagnosing and treating medical conditions. But it may also benefit non-practicing entities seeking to assert claims of questionable validity, because the accused inducer will not be able to defend based on a good-faith belief of invalidity.

Finally, as Cisco pointed out, a party evaluating a patent may conclude that it would not infringe if the claims are construed narrowly, and that the claims would be invalid if they are construed broadly. An opinion of counsel that addresses non-infringement only based on a narrow claim construction could be used by the patent owner to argue in favor of a narrow claim construction at the Markman hearing, in order to avoid a finding of invalidity. Accordingly, parties are well advised to obtain opinions that address both non-infringement and invalidity under different potential claim constructions even though the invalidity opinion would not serve as a defense to inducement liability.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Morrison & Foerster LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Morrison & Foerster LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions