Source: https://www.mmmlaw.com/media/other-than-non-infringement-does-any-good-faith-defense-to-inducement-or-contributory-infringement-exist-after-commil-see-more-at-http-wwwmmmlawcom-media-room-publications-articles-other-than-non-infringement-does-any-good-faith-defense-to-inducement-or-c/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 11:25:24+00:00

Document:
The defenses of inequitable conduct, patent misuse and equitable estoppel not only do not appear in different parts of the Act as was the case with infringement and invalidity, they do not appear in the Act at all. Under this part of the Court’s reasoning, a good faith belief in any of these defenses would not be a defense to inducement or contributory infringement. With regard to the Court’s reasoning on the burden of proof, the issue is somewhat more muddled. For inequitable conduct, which requires proof by clear and convincing evidence,[xiv] the reasoning applies equally. For patent misuse and equitable estoppel, however, the result is different since, with some exceptions, the defendant bears the burden of proving those defenses only by a preponderance of the evidence.[xv] Similarly, with regard to the Court’s reasoning concerning the “the allocation of the burden to persuade on these questions, and the timing for the presentations of the relevant arguments,”[xvi] the result may be different since much of the focus in the defenses of inequitable conduct, misuse and equitable estoppel are on the patentee’s actions and could be developed, at least in part, during the patentee’s case in chief on cross examination. As to the Court’s practical reasons, none of these three defenses can be raised in post grant review proceedings in the USPTO. They potentially could be raised in a declaratory judgment action provided there is the requisite case or controversy. As to increasing the cost of litigation there would appear to be no basis to distinguish these defenses from invalidity under the Court’s analysis.
This circles back to the issue of infringement itself. It is clear that whatever doubt that existed after Global-Tech, if any, as to whether a good faith belief in an alternate claim construction that would render the accused product non-infringing is a valid defense to vicarious liability has arguably been eliminated given that the Court used this precise fact patter in its opinion as an example of a viable defense.[xix] Presumably, for the same reason, a good faith belief in a non-infringement position that ultimately is unsuccessful, while not a defense to direct infringement, would be a valid defense to vicarious liability for inducement or contributory infringement. This result highlights the old adage that if one can choose between a good non-infringement defense and good invalidity defense, one should take the non-infringement defense.
[i] Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 575 U.S. __, No. 13-896, slip op. (May 26, 2015).
[ii] Id., slip op.at 9.
[iii] Id. at 6 (emphasis added).
[v] Id. (quoting Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. __, No. 10-6, slip op. at 10 (May 31, 2011)).
[vi] Commil, slip op. at 9.
[xiv] E.g., A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960 F.2d 1010, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (en banc).
[xv] GFI, Inc. v. Franklin Corp., 88 F. Supp. 2d 619, 621, 635 (N.D. Miss. 2000), aff’d, 265 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (applying preponderance of the evidence standard where the misuse allegation was based on the patentee’s licensing conduct). However, depending on the basis for the misuse, courts may apply the clear and convincing standard. For example, where the allegation is misuse by asserting a patent in bad faith, “the clear and convincing evidence standard protects the plaintiff for only serious misuse will overcome the presumption that this infringement action was instituted in good faith.” Kockums Indus. Ltd. v. Salem Equip., Inc., 561 F. Supp. 168, 173 (D. Or. 1983); see also Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal Ltd., 781 F.2d 861, 877 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (bad faith in bringing patent infringement action must be proven by clear and convincing evidence).
[xvi] Commil, slip op. at 11.
[xvii] Commil, slip op. at 11.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.