This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Petitioners, the case concerns the proper standard for the state‑of‑mind element in a claim of inducing patent infringement.
Petitioners argue that liability should require a purposeful, culpable intent to induce infringement, meaning the inducer must intend the infringing act and know the patent is infringed.
Petitioners contend that willful blindness does not satisfy this purposeful, culpable test.
Background and question before the Court
The Court is asked whether knowledge of the patent and a purposeful intent to cause infringement are required for induced infringement liability.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justices questioned whether requiring the inducer to know the specific patent at issue is an impossible standard to meet.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Global‑Tech Appliances, Inc.)
According to Petitioners, petitioners propose a “purposeful, culpable” test that requires the inducer to have a purpose to induce a third party to engage in acts the inducer knows infringe the patent.
According to Petitioners, they argue that willful blindness does not satisfy this test.
Respondent (SEB S.A.)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument began at 11:13 a.m.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts announced the hearing.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg questioned whether the required knowledge of the patent is impossible to meet.
Justice Kagan asked about differing standards for knowledge of the patent versus knowledge of infringing acts.
According to Justice Sotomayor, justice Sotomayor expressed confusion about what purposeful act is required for liability.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia interjected with a procedural question during the argument.
According to Mr. Cruz, mr. Cruz suggested that a slight change in wording could dramatically alter the case outcome.
Mr. Dunnegan raised a rebuttal point concerning the standard for willful blindness.
- [1] 9b6898b4c546169bd6ea-r1-8bf6088c85e002e8.pdf, p. 1
- [2] 9b6898b4c546169bd6ea-r1-8bf6088c85e002e8.pdf, p. 3
- [3] 9b6898b4c546169bd6ea-r1-8bf6088c85e002e8.pdf, p. 4
- [4] 9b6898b4c546169bd6ea-r1-8bf6088c85e002e8.pdf, p. 21
- [5] 9b6898b4c546169bd6ea-r1-8bf6088c85e002e8.pdf, p. 24
- [6] 9b6898b4c546169bd6ea-r1-8bf6088c85e002e8.pdf, p. 38
- [7] 9b6898b4c546169bd6ea-r1-8bf6088c85e002e8.pdf, p. 39
- [8] 9b6898b4c546169bd6ea-r1-8bf6088c85e002e8.pdf, p. 53
What the Court decided
Why it matters
The case could clarify the mental‑state requirement for induced patent infringement, affecting how courts evaluate liability.
According to Petitioners, a ruling on whether willful blindness satisfies the purposeful intent test would shape the scope of liability for parties who suspect infringement.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 9b6898b4c546169bd6ea-r1-8bf6088c85e002e8.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 24, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.