The plaintiff SEB (the respondent in this case) holds a patent on a design for a deep-fat fryer; the defendant Global Tech (here, the petitioner) reverse-engineered SEBâ(TM)s fryer and marketed a competing fryer.
You really want to rethink your "I don't read patents to avoid damages" strategy: The U.S. Supreme Court has now flat-lined that advice
But the remainder of the opinion is quite interesting. Adopting a suggestion from the oral argument, the Court (with only Justice Kennedy dissenting) held that the judgment of the Federal Circuit nevertheless could be affirmed on the basis of Global Techâ(TM)s willful blindness.
The following statement is not true. The previous statement is true.