期刊刊名：NTUT Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Management 　 卷期：1卷1期

篇名出版日期：2012年6月1日

作者：Yuan-Chen Chiang

語言：English

關鍵字：American patent law, induced infringement, indirect infringement, inducement, willful blindness

被點閱次數：0次

閱讀時間：0sec

摘要：
For Taiwanese companies doing business in the United States, patent infringement lawsuit has been one of the biggest headaches. Under U.S. patent laws, activities outside of U.S. could also be punished for “induced infringement” under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Last year, for the first time, the Supreme Court decided to clarify the scope of knowledge and intent requirement for inducement liability under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). In Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB, S.A., the Supreme Court held that induced infringement under § 271(b) does require knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement. The Supreme Court also ruled that “deliberate indifference” to a known risk that a patent exists does not satisfy the knowledge required by § 271(b). However, the Supreme Court concluded that when the defendant has no actual knowledge, the knowledge requirement could still be inferred by using a “willful blindness” legal standard. Therefore, to avoid induced infringement under this case, whenever a foreign company learns that the features of its own product, or the product features of its non-U.S. customers, may fall within the claims of a specific U.S. patent, they should advise their customers that this product should not be sold, used or imported into the United States. Without an affirmative step to encourage its customer’s infringement activities in the U.S., the foreign company can significantly reduce its risk for induced infringement.

　　　　　[全文下載]