Download the (5–page) Essay here: Broadening Federal Circuit Jurisprudence: Moving Beyond Federal Circuit Patent Cases, 2010 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 19 (2010).
By Dennis Crouch
After the Federal Circuit’s 2006 en banc decision in DSU Medical, charges of inducing patent infringement were thought to require that the accused infringer have actual knowledge of the asserted patent. In its recent decision in SEB v. Montgomery Ward, the Federal Circuit rejected that conventional wisdom and instead held that “deliberate indifference” to the existence of a patent would be sufficient to support an inducement finding. Thus, “a claim for inducement is viable even where the patentee has not produced direct evidence that the accused infringer actually knew of the patent-in-suit.”
An interesting aspect of the recent SEB decision is the court’s use of non-patent and non-Federal Circuit cases to aid its interpretation of the law. Specifically, the decision relies on three cases that are decidedly non-patent: Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994); United States v. Carani, 492 F.3d 867, 873 (7th Cir. 2007); and Woodman v. WWOR-TV, Inc., 411 F.3d 69 (2d Cir. 2005).
Farmer v. Brennan involved the question of whether an incarcerated pre-operative transsexual who projects female characteristics could be held in a men-only prison. The Supreme Court there held that a prison official could be liable for “deliberate indifference” to inmate safety. US v. Carani involved an appeal of a child pornography conviction and the Seventh Circuit ruled that the defendant’s knowledge of the child-status of the pornography was satisfied by the defendant’s deliberate avoidance of or indifference to the truth. Woodman v. WWOR-TV involved an age discrimination charge against FOX and noted that knowledge of a fact may be proven through evidence that the party “consciously avoided knowledge of what would otherwise have been obvious him.”
Interestingly, the cases cited above are not found in the appellate briefs. Rather, the SEB court’s concept of “deliberate indifference” was raised sua sponte by the Federal Circuit.
A Broader Jurisprudential Outlook: In the past, I have spoken with appellate attorneys who suggested that briefs to the Federal Circuit should almost exclusively cite to prior Federal Circuit patent cases. I wonder if this decision is indicative of a shift in the court’s jurisprudence. In recent cases such as eBay, MedImmune, and Grokster, the Supreme Court pushed the Federal Circuit to consider non-patent jurisprudence when deciding patent cases. In KSR, the Supreme Court also suggested that the Federal Circuit should not overly bind itself to doctrine. These bits of Supreme Court guidance suggest a broader jurisprudential outlook. Additionally, soon-to-be Chief Judge Rader has a penchant for drawing connections across doctrinal lines. It will be interesting see whether this case is a sign of a new era or perhaps simply an aberration.