Enplas Display Device Corporation v. Seoul Semiconductor Company, Ltd.

There are two forms of patent infringement: direct and indirect. Acts that constitute direct infringement, such as making or selling the invention, must occur in the United States to be cognizable. Title 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) governs one type of indirect infringement and imposes liability on one who “actively induces infringement of a patent.” Liability may attach only if the defendant took affirmative steps to induce conduct that it knew constituted direct patent infringement. Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 760, 766 (2011). Awareness of a “‘known risk’ that the induced acts are infringing” is insufficient. Id. at 770. Under the “presumption against extraterritoriality,” courts construe federal laws to have only domestic application “[a]bsent clearly expressed congressional intent to the contrary.” RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Cmty., 136 S. Ct. 2090, 2100 (2016). This principle “applies with particular force in patent law.” Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 454–55 (2007). The question presented is: Whether, in view of the presumption against extraterritoriality, a foreign defendant’s foreign sales of components to a foreign company qualifies as induced infringement, where the defendant knew of, at most, a risk that the components might be incorporated by third parties into infringing products that might be sold by other third parties in the United States.