“We consider whether a party who ‘actively induces infringement of a patent’ under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) must know that the induced acts constitute patent infringement.”
“[W]e now hold that induced infringement under § 271(b) requires knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement. . . . Returning to Pentalpha’s principal challenge, we agree that deliberate indifference to a known risk that a patent exists is not the appropriate standard under § 271(b). We nevertheless affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals because the evidence in this case was plainly sufficient to support a finding of Pentalpha’s knowledge under the doctrine of willful blindness.”
