LAIPLALAIPLA
LAIPLALAIPLA
  • About
    • About LAIPLA
    • Ambassador Outreach Program
    • Board of Directors
    • Committees
    • Administration
    • Member Firms and Companies
    • Past Presidents
    • Recent Past Presidents
    • Public Service Award
    • Diversity Fellowship
    • Bylaws
  • Events
  • Membership
  • Sponsorship
  • IP Blogs
  • Contact
  • About
    • About LAIPLA
    • Ambassador Outreach Program
    • Board of Directors
    • Committees
    • Administration
    • Member Firms and Companies
    • Past Presidents
    • Recent Past Presidents
    • Public Service Award
    • Diversity Fellowship
    • Bylaws
  • Events
  • Membership
  • Sponsorship
  • IP Blogs
  • Contact

Top Ten No. (5) Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics: Enhanced Patent Damages

June 13, 2016| in Wegner's Top 10| by Hal Wegner

Today in Top Ten No. (5) Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., __ U.S. __ (2016)(Roberts, C.J.), the Court reversed the narrow Federal Circuit construction of patent damages under  35 USC § 284.  The Court opened up “enhanced damages to egregious cases of misconduct beyond typical infringement.”

The holding was unanimous; a separate opinion was filed by Breyer, J., concurring, joined by Kennedy, Alito, JJ.

Regards,

Hal

From the Opinion:

 “* * * Section 284 gives district courts the discretion to award enhanced damages against those guilty of patent infringement. In applying this discretion, district courts are ‘to be guided by [the] sound legal principles’ developed over nearly two centuries of application and interpretation of the Patent Act. Martin [v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 139 (2005)] (internal quotation marks omitted). Those principles channel the exercise of discretion, limiting the award of enhanced damages to egregious cases of misconduct beyond typical infringement. The Seagate test, in contrast, unduly confines the ability of district courts to exercise the discretion conferred on them. Because both cases before us were decided under the [In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007)] framework, we vacate the judgments of the Federal Circuit and remand the cases for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

IP Blog Categories

  • Announcements
  • Events
  • LAIPLA News
  • The TTABlog
  • Uncategorized
  • Wegner's Top 10
  • Wegner's Writings

Archives

Previous

No. (1) Lexmark, No. (2) Ariosa; No. (7) Promega: Certiorari Decisions June 20 and 27

Next

Top Ten No. (5) WesternGeco v. Ion Geophysical: Cert. Vote this Thursday


Since 1934, LAIPLA has been educating and connecting members of the local intellectual property legal community

Pages

About 
Events
Membership
Sponsorship
Contact
Privacy Policy

Search
Contact

LAIPLA
1621 W 25th Street
Box 633
San Pedro, CA 90732
Phone: (323) 285-1654
Fax: ( 310) 878-0517
Email: office@laipla.net

© 2023 Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association. All Rights Reserved | Website design by SafeHouse Web.