October Term 2014 · Docket 13-896
Does a good-faith belief that a patent is invalid defeat inducement liability?
Commil argues that a good-faith belief in patent invalidity should block inducement liability. Cisco argues that such a belief is irrelevant to the intent requirement.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Werbner argued that an infringer who actively induces cannot escape responsibility by claiming the patent is invalid.
Ms. Anders asserted that a good-faith belief in non-infringement or invalidity should preclude liability for inducing enforcement.
Mr. Waxman contended that the linchpin of scienter is knowledge that the induced acts violate the patentee's rights.
Justice Scalia questioned whether common law aider and abetter liability requires wrongful intent beyond the primary actor's conduct.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 20-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 18-24 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 18-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 4-22 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 4-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-32 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 50-4 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 50-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 12-16 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 12-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 20-24 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 20-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 50-6 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 50-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 30-38 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 30-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 42-42 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 42-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 10-30 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 10-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 34-36 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 34-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 48-12 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 48-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 16-26 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 16-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 40-48 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 40-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 48-34 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 48-34
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The dispute centers on the mental state required for patent inducement. Commil claims a good-faith belief in invalidity negates the necessary intent. Cisco contends that knowledge of the patent's existence is sufficient for liability.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 20-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 18-24 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 18-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 4-22 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 4-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-32 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-32
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 31, 2015.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
What each side wants
Commil wants the Court to hold that a good-faith belief in invalidity defeats inducement liability.
Cisco wants the Court to hold that a good-faith belief in invalidity does not defeat inducement liability.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 20-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 18-24 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 18-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 4-22 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 4-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-32 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-32
What each side says
Commil argues that inducement requires intent to do wrong, which a good-faith belief in invalidity negates.
Cisco argues that inducement requires only knowledge that the acts violate the patentee's rights, not a belief in validity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 20-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 18-24 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 18-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 4-22 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 4-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-32 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-32
What the justices asked
Justice Scalia asked whether aider and abetter liability requires wrongful intent under common law.
Justice Kagan asked how a seller determines liability when patent construction is ambiguous.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 50-4 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 50-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 12-16 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 12-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 20-24 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 20-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 50-6 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 50-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 30-38 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 30-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 42-42 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 42-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 10-30 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 10-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 34-36 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 34-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 48-12 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 48-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 16-26 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 16-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 40-48 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 40-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 48-34 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 48-34
Why it matters
This case defines the mental state required for patent inducement. It determines whether good-faith beliefs in invalidity shield actors from liability. The outcome shapes patent enforcement and market competition.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 20-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 18-24 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 18-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 4-22 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 4-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-32 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-32
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 50-4 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 50-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 12-16 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 12-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 20-24 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 20-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 50-6 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 50-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 30-38 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 30-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 42-42 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 42-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 10-30 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 10-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 34-36 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 34-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 48-12 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 48-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 16-26 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 16-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 40-48 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 40-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 48-34 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 48-34
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 20-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 18-24 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 18-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 4-22 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 4-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-32 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 20-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 18-24 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 18-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 4-22 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 4-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-32 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-32
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.