CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.

2011 United States Supreme Court case

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionApr 27, 2026
Entity authorityQ5570035 ↗
Source-derived summary

Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case. The case considered whether a party, in order to "actively [induce] infringement of a patent" under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), must know that the induced act constitutes patent infringement, or whether deliberate indifference to the existence of a patent can be considered a form of actual knowledge. In an 8–1 decision delivered by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court held that induced infringement requires knowledge of patent infringement, but because the petitioners had knowledge of a patent infringement lawsuit involving the respondent and Sunbeam Products over the same invention, the Federal Circuit's judgement that petitioners induced infringement must be affirmed under the doctrine of willful blindness.

Justice Anthony Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion.

Background

In the late 1980s, respondent SEB, S.A., a French maker of home appliances, invented an innovative deep fryer, the external surfaces of which remain cool-to-the-touch during operation. The "cool-touch" fryer consisted of a framing that suspends the metal frying pot within the plastic housing, leaving an insulating air space between the heated pot and the exterior. SEB obtained U.S. Patent No. 4,995,312 for this design in 1991 and began manufacturing and selling it under the T-Fal brand.

Editorial summary

Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.” is 2011 United States Supreme Court case. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Global-Tech, Appliances and United, not as a finished interpretation.

Editorial reviewA practical starting point whose main value is the path it opens into stronger specialist and primary sources. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2011, 1991—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. For this dossier, Global-Tech, Appliances and United is the immediate research focus.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The phrase “2011 United States Supreme Court case” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.

Evidence profile

Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 27, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q5570035. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2011 and 1991.

Critical limits

The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. primary sources, Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. archive and Global-Tech research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.”?
  2. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
  3. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.