Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

Questions Presented

Commil holds a patent teaching a method to implement short-range wireless networks. At trial, the jury returned a verdict that Commil’s patent was valid, that Cisco directly infringed but did not induce infringement, and awarded damages. Because Cisco’s counsel invoked stereotypes about Commil’s Jewish owner and inventors during trial, the district court found the verdict “inconsistent with substantial justice” and ordered a new trial on inducement and damages only. At the second trial, the jury returned a verdict that Cisco induced infringement and awarded damages. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded for a third trial on two grounds. First, although Commil’s patent is valid, the Federal Circuit held that Cisco’s “good faith belief” that the patent was invalid is a defense to induced infringement. Second, although Cisco had actual knowledge of Commil’s patent, the Federal Circuit held that this Court’s opinion in Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 131 S. Ct. 2060 (2011) rendered erroneous and prejudicial the jury instruction based on DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

The questions presented are:
1. Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that a defendant’s belief that a patent is invalid is a defense to induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
2. Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 131 S. Ct. 2060 (2011) required retrial on the issue of intent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) where the jury (1) found the defendant had actual knowledge of the patent and (2) was instructed that “[i]nducing third-party infringement cannot occur unintentionally.”

Case Documents

• Cert. Petition -- Commil v. Cisco Systems (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
• Brief for Cisco in Opposition -- Commil v. Cisco Systems (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
• Amicus Brief for the United States -- Commil v. Cisco Systems (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
• Supplemental Brief for Cisco in Opposition -- Commil v. Cisco Systems (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
• Reply Brief of Petitioner -- Commil v. Cisco Systems (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
• Brief of Petitioner -- Commil v. Cisco Systems (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
• Gilead Sciences, Inc. Amicus Brief -- Commil v. Cisco Systems (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
• Intellectual Property Owners Association Amicus Brief -- Commil v. Cisco Systems (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
• United States Amicus Brief -- Commil v. Cisco Systems (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
• AbbVie Inc. Amicus Brief -- Commil v. Cisco Systems (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
• American Intellectual Property Law Association Amicus Brief.pdf
• Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Amicus Brief -- Commil v. Cisco Systems (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
• MUSC Foundation for Research Development Amicus Brief -- Commil v. Cisco Systems (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
• Biotechnology Industry Organization Amicus Brief.pdf
• Brief of Respondent -- Commil v. Cisco Systems (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
• Public Knowledge, et al. Amicus Brief -- Commil v. Cisco Systems (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
• 16 Intellectual Property Law Professors Amicus Brief -- Commil v. Cisco Systems (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
• EMC Corporation, et al. Amicus Brief -- Commil v. Cisco Systems (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
• Computer & Communications Industry Association Amicus Brief -- Commil v. Cisco Systems (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
• DeLorme, et al. Amicus Brief -- Commil v. Cisco Systems (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
• Generic Pharmaceutical Association Amicus Brief -- Commil v. Cisco Systems (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
• Electronic Frontier Foundation Amicus Brief -- Commil v. Cisco Systems (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
• Askeladden L.L.C. Amicus Brief -- Commil v. Cisco Systems (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
• Prof. Saurabh Vishnubhakat Amicus Brief -- Commil v. Cisco Systems (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
• Reply Brief of Petitioner -- Commil v. Cisco Systems (U.S. Supreme Court)_0.pdf
• Opinion -- Commil v. Cisco Systems (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf