View source for Social:Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

{{Infobox SCOTUS case
| Litigants = Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
| ArgueDate = March 31
| ArgueYear = 2015
| DecideDate = May 26
| DecideYear = 2015
| FullName = Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
| USVol = 575
| USPage = 632
| ParallelCitations = 135 S.Ct. 1920 (2015)
| Docket = 13-896
| OralArgument = https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/13-896
| OralReargument = 
| OpinionAnnouncement = 
| Subsequent = 
| Holding =  
| Majority = Kennedy
| JoinMajority = Ginsburg, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan
| Dissent= Scalia
| JoinDissent= Roberts
| LawsApplied = [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271 35 U.S.C. § 271]
}}
'''''Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,''''' 135 S.Ct. 1920 (2015), was a 2015 decision by the United States Supreme Court pertaining to the standard for [[Social:Patent infringement#indirect infringement|induced patent infringement]].  Writing for a 6-2 majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy held that (1) a claim of induced infringement requires a showing that the defendant knew that it is engaging in infringing conduct and (2) a defendant's belief that a patent is [[Social:Patentability|invalid]] is not a defense to a claim of induced infringement.  Justice Antonin Scalia dissented from the second point, arguing that, in his view, a good faith belief in a patent's invalidity should constitute a defense to a charge of induced infringement.

==Background==
In 2002, the United States Patent and Trademark Office awarded U.S. Patent No. 6,430,395 ("the '395 patent") to Commil. The '395 patent claims as its invention an improved short-range wireless network that allows mobile devices to more quickly and efficiently move between various nodes in a network.<ref name="SCOTUSBlog1">{{Cite web|date=2015-04-01|title=Argument analysis: Justices debate intent to induce patent infringement (again)|url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2015/04/argument-recap-justices-debate-intent-to-induce-patent-infringement-again/|access-date=2021-08-14|website=SCOTUSblog|language=en-US}}</ref> 

In 2007, Commil sued [[Company:Cisco Systems|Cisco Systems]] in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of the '395 patent by Cisco's wireless access points and controllers. <ref name="SCOTUSBlog1" /> In 2010, the case was tried to a jury who found that Cisco did not induce others to infringe the '395 patent.<ref name="SCOTUS">{{Citation|title=Commil Usa, Llc v. Cisco Systems, Inc.|date=March 31, 2015|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5555433856338839638&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr|volume=135|pages=1920|access-date=2021-08-14}}</ref> The district court overturned this verdict due to certain improper comments made by Cisco's counsel during the trial and ordered a second jury trial. <ref name="SCOTUS" /> At the second trial, Cisco attempted to argue that it did not induce infringement of the '395 patent because it held a good faith belief that the '395 patent was invalid. However, the district court did not allow Cisco to make this argued and refused to provide Cisco's requested instruction to the jury.  The jury at the second trial subsequently found that Cisco had, in fact, induced infringement of the '395 patent and ordered it to pay $63.8 million in damages.<ref name="SCOTUSBlog2">{{Cite web|date=2014-12-05|title=Court to rule on license plate messages, two other cases|url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2014/12/court-to-rule-on-license-plate-messages-two-other-cases/|access-date=2021-08-14|website=SCOTUSblog|language=en-US}}</ref>

Cisco appealed this verdict to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, arguing, among other things, that the district court was incorrect to refuse to instruct the jury on Cisco's good faith belief that the '395 patent was invalid.  The Federal Circuit agreed with Cisco and reversed the jury verdict against it.  Judge Pauline Newman of the Federal Circuit however criticized this ruling and argued that a good faith belief as to the invalidity of a patent was not a defense to induced infringement.  Both parties subsequently appealed the Federal Circuit's opinion to the Supreme Court for further review.<ref name="SCOTUSBlog2" />

==Supreme Court opinion==
[[File:Anthony Kennedy official SCOTUS portrait.jpg|alt=Official portrait of Justice Anthony Kennedy.|thumb|Justice Kennedy delivered the majority opinion for the Court.]]
The Supreme Court heard oral argument on March 31, 2015 and issued its opinion on May 26, 2015.  Justice Kennedy, writing for a 6-2 majority, addressed two issues in the Court's opinion.

First, the Court clarified and reiterated its holding in ''Global-Tech v. SEB'' that, in making a claim for induced infringement, a [[Social:Plaintiff|plaintiff]] must show that the defendant knew, not only of the patent itself, but also knew that its actions constituted infringement of that patent.<ref name="ABA">{{Cite web|last=Day|first=Jamees|date=August 25, 2015|title=Commil v. Cisco Systems: Nixing Good Faith Belief in Invalid Patent|url=https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/intellectual-property/practice/2015/commil-v-cisco-systems-nexing-good-faith-belief-invalid-patent/|url-status=live|access-date=August 14, 2021|website=[[Organization:American Bar Association|American Bar Association]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200926132258/https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/intellectual-property/practice/2015/commil-v-cisco-systems-nexing-good-faith-belief-invalid-patent/ |archive-date=2020-09-26 }}</ref> Second, the Court considered Cisco's claim that it held a good faith belief that the '395 patent was invalid and found that this assertion, even if true, did not constitute a defense to a claim of induced infringement. The Court's conclusion focused heavily on the distinction between infringement and invalidity, with Justice Kennedy noting that, while invalidity may be a defense to liability in a patent case, it is not separately a defense to a finding of infringement.<ref name="ABA" /> The Court further considered that, under 35 U.S.C. § 282, a patent is presumed valid such that allowing a good faith belief of invalidity to act as a defense would undermine that presumption. Finally, the Court noted that to rule otherwise would encourage litigants to develop post-hac, litigation-driven invalidity theories solely to escape a finding of induced infringement.<ref name="ABA" /> Finally, the Court, in a somewhat unusual fashion, devotes a final section of the opinion to a discussion of non-practicing entities, such as [[Social:Patent troll|patent troll]]s, and notes that precluding this defense does not provide plaintiffs with free license to accuse companies of induced infringement and that defendants have many avenues with which to attack the validity of patents.<ref name="SCOTUSBlog3">{{Cite web|date=2015-05-27|title=Opinion analysis: Justices eat their own words in dispute about inducing patent infringement|url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2015/05/opinion-analysis-justices-eat-their-own-words-in-dispute-about-inducing-patent-infringement/|access-date=2021-08-14|website=SCOTUSblog|language=en-US}}</ref> <ref name="ABA" /> 

[[File:Antonin Scalia Official SCOTUS Portrait.jpg|alt=Official portrait of Justice Antonin Scalia.|thumb|Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, delivered a dissenting opinion.]]

Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, dissented from the Court's ruling. While Justice Roberts agreed with the Court's conclusion that inducement requires both knowledge of the patent and of the alleged infringement of that patent, he disagreed with the majority's holding that a good faith belief of invalidity could not act as a defense to a charge of inducement. While Justice Scalia acknowledged that infringement and invalidity are legally distinct concepts, he also noted that, as a practical matter, it was impossible to infringe an invalid patent. <ref name="SCOTUSBlog3" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=High Court Nixes 'Good Faith' Induced Infringement Defense - Law360|url=https://www.law360.com/articles/645707/high-court-nixes-good-faith-induced-infringement-defense|access-date=2021-08-14|website=www.law360.com|language=en}}</ref>

==Reactions to the Supreme Court's decision==
In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision, legal commentators believed that the decision would have a significant impact on how companies evaluated allegations of patent infringement. Ronald Mann of ''SCOTUSblog ''expressed surprise at the Court's ruling, noting that Commil had "managed to pull off a hard trick" by "getting a majority of the Justices to ignore the explicit language of an opinion so recent that all of those who signed it are still on the Court."<ref name="SCOTUSBlog3" /> As Mann saw it, the Court's ruling in ''Global-Tech v. SEB'' had implicitly suggested that a good faith belief of invalidity could serve as a defense such that the Court's new decision was a surprising reversal for defendants.<ref name="SCOTUSBlog3" /> Gene Quinn of ''IP Watchdog ''remarked that the decision was a "reasonable" one while criticizing several factual errors in the Court's opinion as demonstrating "how little the Supreme Court actually knows about patent law."<ref>{{Cite web|date=2015-05-27|title=SCOTUS rules good faith belief of patent invalidity is no defense to induced infringement|url=https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/05/27/good-faith-belief-of-patent-invalidity-is-no-defense-to-induced-infringement/id=58126/|access-date=2021-08-14|website=IPWatchdog.com {{!}} Patents & Patent Law|language=en-US}}</ref> Other commentators noted that the Court's ruling would likely reduce the number of [[Social:Patent infringement#Clearance searches and opinions|pre-litigation opinion letters]] related to invalidity and that companies seeking to minimize infringement claims would be more likely to seek opinions regarding non-infringement.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Samansky|first=Adam P.|last2=Subach|first2=Serge|title=Commil USA V. Cisco Systems: “I thought it was legal” is no defense to induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)|url=https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2015-08-03-commil-usa-v-cisco-systems-i-thought-it-was-legal-no-defense|access-date=2021-08-14|website=www.mintz.com|language=en}}</ref> 

==Subsequent proceedings==
Following the Supreme Court's decision, the case was remanded to the Federal Circuit for consideration of how the case should proceed.  On remand, the Federal Circuit held that neither Cisco nor its customers infringed the '395 patent and that judgment should be entered in Cisco's favor, thus wiping out the $63.8 million verdict entered by the jury.<ref>{{Cite web|title=It Ends Not with a Bang but a Whimper in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.|url=https://www.natlawreview.com/article/it-ends-not-bang-whimper-commil-usa-llc-v-cisco-systems-inc|access-date=2021-08-14|website=The National Law Review|language=en}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-896_l53m.pdf Text of the Court's Opinion]

[[Category:Patent law]]

{{Sourceattribution|Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.|1}}