Strict liability

While due process and the right to a fair trial were embedded in Art. 10A of the Constitution, the objective of such Constitutional protection was to achieve justice and in cases of strict liability, where damage to the environment was irreversible and permanent, immediate action was fortified in order to prevent irreparable damage

In such cases it was necessary to take precautionary measures, which did not immolate or infringe the right to fair trial or due process, but simply ensured that a harm or hazard did not continue during the time spent in due process.

Patent infringement was a wrong of strict liability: it required no knowledge or intention on the part of the alleged infringer, whose state of mind was wholly irrelevant to the issue of whether he infringed the patent

Fact that the alleged infringer did not know of the existence, contents or effect of the patent was completely irrelevant to the question of infringement, even if he had thought the invention up for himself

Logically a person who, while wholly innocent of the existence, contents or effect of the patent, could nonetheless be secondarily liable if he assisted the primary infringer in his patent-infringing acts.