A good-faith belief of invalidity is evidence that may negate the specific intent to encourage another’s infringement, which is required for induced infringement.
Background / Facts: The patent here relates to providing faster and more reliable handoffs of mobile devices from one base station to another as a mobile device moves throughout a network area. Cisco is a major supplier of WiFi access points and controllers that are accused of inducing infringement of the patent when deployed. Although the patent was found valid at the district court, Cisco attempted to introduce evidence that it had a good-faith belief of invalidity in an attempt to show that it lacked the requisite “knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement.”
Issue(s): Whether a good-faith belief of invalidity may negate the requisite intent for induced infringement.
Holding(s): Yes. After explaining that it is clear that a good-faith belief of non-infringement is relevant evidence that tends to show that an accused inducer lacked the intent required to be held liable for induced infringement, the Federal Circuit acknowledged that “[i]t is true, as the district court noted, that we appear to have not previously determined whether a good-faith belief of invalidity may negate the requisite intent for induced infringement. We now hold that it may.” The court stated that “[w]e see no principled distinction between a good-faith belief of invalidity and a good-faith belief of non-infringement for the purpose of whether a defendant possessed the specific intent to induce infringement of a patent. … This is, of course, not to say that such evidence precludes a finding of induced infringement. Rather, it is evidence that should be considered by the fact-finder in determining whether an accused party knew that the induced acts constitute patent infringement.”