The 8-0 reversal yesterday of the Federal Circuit in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., __ U.S. __ (2016)(Roberts, C.J.), of the appellate tribunal’s narrow view of patent damages in 35 USC § 284 is hardly a clear signal that the Supreme Court is “pro-patent”.   Rather, the pro-patentee result shows that the Court is willing to follow the statute to reach such a result where the statutory wording dictates that result.

Whither post-Seagate Case Law:  One wonders why, given the public policy reasons supporting the holding in Halo v. Pulse that the appellate tribunal followed its narrow view in Seagate,particularly given Supreme Court case law subsequent to Seagate.