In a 6-2 decision in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.^,[1] the Supreme Court ruled that a “good-faith” belief that a patent is invalid is no defense to a claim of induced infringement.  A belief in invalidity does not negate the knowledge requirement imposed by 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).

Commil is the owner of a patent claiming a method of providing faster, more reliable communications between base stations and user devices in a Wi-Fi network.^[2]  Commil brought suit against Cisco, alleging that Cisco induced others to infringe by selling network equipment for others to use.^[3] At trial, Cisco sought to introduce evidence that it had a good-faith belief in the invalidity of Commil’s patent.^[4]  The district court found the evidence inadmissible, although it did not provide an explanation for its finding^.[5]  The jury found Cisco liable for induced infringement.^[6]  Cisco appealed the court’s exclusion of its evidence to the Federal Circuit.^[7]  

The Federal Circuit held that evidence of a good-faith belief in invalidity can negate the intent required for a finding of induced infringement.^[8]  The Federal Circuit stated that, for purposes of determining intent, there was no distinction between a good-faith belief in invalidity and a good-faith belief in non-infringement.^[9] 

The Supreme Court vacated the Federal Circuit’s decision, holding that belief in invalidity cannot negate the knowledge requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).^[10]  First confirming its holding in Global-Tech, the Supreme Court reiterated that liability for induced infringement attaches only if the defendant both knew of the patent and knew that the induced acts constituted infringement.^[11]  The Court then clarified that this knowledge requirement concerns infringement and not validity.  “The language requires intent to ‘bring about the desired result,’ which is infringement.”^[12]  Infringement and validity are separate issues and when infringement is at issue, validity “is not the question to be confronted.”^[13]  Infringement and validity are found in different parts of the Patent Act and have been identified as alternatives in defending against a charge of infringement.^[14] 

Furthermore, the Court reiterated that there is a statutory presumption that patents are valid.^[15]  The Court stated that in allowing belief in invalidity to act as a defense to induced infringement “the force of that presumption would be lessened to a drastic degree, for a defendant could prevail if he proved he reasonably believed the patent was invalid. That would circumvent the high bar Congress is presumed to have chosen: the clear and convincing standard.”^[16]  

The Court concluded that potential defendants may still challenge the validity of patents through USPTO review and reexamination, by filing a declaratory judgment action or by raising an invalidity defense in court.^[17]