The United States has the most pro-inventor patent system which provides a full range of remedies for patentees facing infringement. 35 U.S.C. § 271 (b) provides, ”Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.” So, a person accused of active inducement does not infringe the claimed invention directly. Instead, another person directly exploits the claimed invention. In 2011, the Supreme Court in Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. interpreted the knowledgment requirement of § 271 (b) to mandate that the plaintiff has to prove that an inducer knew the patent-in-suit and the patent infringement. The Supreme Court clarified that there is no negligent or reckless inducer. However, what was not clear is whether the ”should have known” standard has been abrogated because the Supreme Court did not express that. After the Federal Circuit's Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc. in 2013, the ”should have known” standard was finally removed from the knowledge requirement. After Global-Tech, there were several district court decisions applying Global-Tech. This article analyzed several early district court decisions and found no effect on the traditional practice of finding inducement.
NTUT Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Management, 2(2), 72-112