28Mar 2015

Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems: What Have We Learned so Far? by{Time to read: 2:15 minutes} The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear a case which could have huge implications for the future of patent infringement in the United States.

The case is Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. and the basic facts are these:

Commil sued Cisco for infringing patents relating to improving wireless network “hand-offs.”

These hand-offs occurred whenever a device changed wireless access points on a network. 

Cisco knew of Commil’s patents since 2004 or 2005, but nonetheless sold products that allegedly induced infringement of Commil’s patents. Cisco argued that it should not be liable for inducement of infringement because it believed, in good faith, that Commil’s patents were invalid and thus not infringed.

There are some relevant precedents that may help decide the case:

  • In DSU Medical v. JMS, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31559 (N.D. Cal., 2003), the accused infringer obtained opinion letters from its legal counsel stating that the product at issue did not infringe the asserted patent. The district court found these opinion letters relevant to a good-faith belief that there was no induced infringement, and the Federal Circuit affirmed.
  • In Global Tech v. SEB, 131 S.Ct. 2060 (2011), the Supreme Court ruled that inducement requires that the alleged inducer have acted with knowledge that the induced acts constituted patent infringement.

The question presented in Commil is whether an infringer’s good-faith belief of the invalidity of a patent negates the intent required for inducement of infringement. Cisco argued that its good faith belief that Commil’s patents were invalid should preclude a finding that it had the requisite intent to induce others to infringe Commil’s patents. Commil argued that such a defense would create an “unwarranted and unnecessary escape hatch for defendants that will serve to release defendants who are inducing infringement of valid patents from all liability.”

There are strong legal arguments on both sides, and the outcome may have important implications for many of my clients.The Supreme Court granted certiorari on December 5, 2014 and a decision is expected by July of 2015.

 

Silvia Salvadori, PhDSilvia Salvadori, PhD.
www.salvadorilaw.com
www.salvadorilaw.com/blog
silvia@salvadorilaw.com
(212) 897-1938