Constructive knowledge is sufficient to prove contributory infringement
Jordan, J. Court resolved disputes over proposed jury instructions relating to contributory infringement.
The technology at issue involves a method for programming a universal remote control (URC) called “autoscan.”
The parties disputed whether liability for contributory infringement required proof of defendants’ actual knowledge, or only proof that defendants had reason to know that the universal remote control units would be resold in the United States. Defendants’ authority that knowledge of infringement is required does not support defendants’ contention that actual rather than constructive knowledge is required. Plaintiff’s cases likewise provide little guidance. Relying on guidance from the Supreme Court in a copyright context, the court concludes that constructive knowledge is sufficient. The jury instruction will contain the phrase “knew or should have known.” It further noted that willful blindness is a species of actual knowledge.
