InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 144
Posts 8676
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 10/07/2013

Re: dukesking post# 326568

Wednesday, 02/24/2021 11:50:44 AM

Wednesday, February 24, 2021 11:50:44 AM

Post# of 425793
d-

See Global-Tech Appliances, Inc v. SEB. Willful blindness is shown to be enough evidence to be legally found responsible for inducement. Having the knowledge that your product will be used in an infringing manner is enough for inducement.

Apple to orange.

Although the Federal Circuit’s test departs from the proper willful blindness standard in important respects, the evidence when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict for SEB was sufficient under the correct standard. Pentalpha believed that SEB’s fryer embodied advanced technology that would be valuable in the U. S. market as evidenced by its decision to copy all but the fryer’s cosmetic features. Also revealing is Pentalpha’s decision to copy an overseas model of SEB’s fryer, aware that it would not bear U. S. patent markings. Even more telling is Pentalpha’s decision not to inform its attorney that the product to be evaluated was simply a knockoff of SEB’s fryer. Taken together, the evidence was more than sufficient for a jury to find that Pentalpha subjectively believed there was a high probability that SEB’s fryer was patented and took deliberate steps to avoid knowing that fact, and that it therefore willfully blinded itself to the infringing nature of Sunbeam’s sales.

Best,
G

Disclosure: I wrote this post myself, and it expresses my own opinions (IMHO). I am not receiving compensation for it.

Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent AMRN News