tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post2071674527708174413..comments2023-11-05T06:06:12.057-06:00Comments on The 271 Patent Blog: SCOTUS: Inducement to Infringe Requires "Actual Knowledge" of Patent; "Deliberate Indifference" Not EnoughTwo-Seventy-One Patent Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02481083706071978817noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-33265031804263511022011-07-11T22:27:26.980-05:002011-07-11T22:27:26.980-05:00One wonders how many times the active inducement s...One wonders how many times the active inducement standard will have to be repeated, in how many different ways.Arizona Patent Attorneyhttp://www.galvanilegal.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-71306232810114141062011-06-06T16:28:51.518-05:002011-06-06T16:28:51.518-05:00The Court's ruling makes sense because of a ve...The Court's ruling makes sense because of a very important point: Pentalpha did not tell its attorney that it had purchased and directly, deliberately copied the SEB fryer. If Pentalpha had informed its lawyer as to this fact, then the attorney likely would have found the patent. Because of this deliberate failure to inform the attorney of its copying, the prior art search was just a cover, and "willful blindness" makes complete sense. That considered, I'm glad this <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgZJQhW58ac&feature=related" rel="nofollow">patent litigation</a> went in favor of SEB.patent litigationhttp://www.GeneralPatent.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-21732664013535230532011-06-03T07:56:14.925-05:002011-06-03T07:56:14.925-05:00Peter,
As others have said the difference between...Peter,<br /><br />As others have said the difference between "willful blindness" and "deliberate indifference" is "pedantic sophistry." When affirming the Federal Circuit, why can't SCOTUS leave well enough alone?EGnoreply@blogger.com