US Supreme Court hears Commil USA v Cisco Systems case
A case that should decide whether parties can dismiss claims of induced patent infringement by saying they thought the patent was invalid will be discussed at the Supreme Court today (March 31).
The case, Commil USA v Cisco Systems, which has been running since 2010, concerns the alleged infringement by Cisco Systems of a patent owned by licensing company Commil USA.
The patent, US number 6,430,395, covers methods for a faster wireless internet communication.
Cisco claimed that it believed the patent was invalid and it therefore could not be liable for induced infringement.
Under title 35 of the US Code, a distinction is made between a party’s knowledge of a patent, but which doesn't constitute infringement, and its knowledge that its actions are infringing, known as inducement.
Inducement carries a heavier cost for infringers if they are found liable.
In 2010, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas awarded Commil $3.7 million in damages after it found Cisco infringed the patent but did not induce infringement.
A year later, Commil was awarded a re-trial at the same district court after it claimed Cisco induced infringement.
The court agreed and increased the damages awarded to Commil to just under $64 million.
But Cisco appealed against the decision on the grounds that it was prevented from submitting evidence to the trial that showed that it genuinely believed the patent was invalid and therefore that it “lacked the requisite intent” to induce infringement.
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard the appeal and stated the district court was wrong to prevent Cisco from submitting evidence about the claim of induced infringement.
Commil then asked the Supreme Court to review the case, which it agreed to in December last year.
Marla Butler, partner at law firm Robins Kaplan, told WIPR that if the Supreme Court were to rule in favour of Cisco then it would provide another “arrow in the quiver” of parties accused of induced infringement in other cases.
“Defendants will argue that they cannot be liable for inducement because they believed all along that the patent is invalid,” Butler said.
But, she added that such a ruling could also make matters more difficult for defendants.
“Where a defendant argues that it is not liable for inducement because it did not believe the patent claims read on the accused product or method, the door may be opened for the plaintiff to inquire as to whether a validity analysis was done, leaving the jury to infer a lack of diligence, or even ‘willful blindness,’ if one was not done.”
