• Home
  • About
    • Client Reviews
    • Patent Samples
    • Accolades
    • About Firm
    • Technologies
    • FAQs
  • Services
    • Patent
      • Utility Patents
      • Design Patents
      • Patent Application
      • Patent Defense
      • Patent Enforcement
      • Working with In-House Attorneys
    • Trademark
      • Trademark Search
      • Trademark Application
      • Trademark Enforcement
      • Trademark Defense
    • Licensing
    • Worldwide IP
    • Risk Management
    • Due Diligence
  • Industries
    • Browse Patent Samples
    • Automotive Patents
    • Construction Patents
    • Consumer Products Patents
    • Electronics Patents
    • Food, Beverage, & Other Culinary Patents
    • Manufacturing Patents
    • Medical Products & Devices Patents
    • Optics Patents
    • Software & App Patents
    • Tools & Equipment Patents
  • Learning Resources
    • First-Time Inventor?
    • Why Patent Your Invention in a Bad Economy?
    • Videos on Patents
    • Search 180+ Articles
      • Patent process
        • Overview of Patent Process
          • Patent process timeline and major milestones
          • Patent Process: Invention to Patent Granted (Simplified)
          • Patent process, overall steps and procedures
        • Overview of the examination process within the USPTO
          • Highs and lows of securing patent protection for your invention
          • What is the Patent Office procedure after filing a patent application?
        • Benefits of a Patent Search
          • What is a patent search and How to do it?
        • Patent attorneys, agents and the USPTO can help with the patent process
        • USPTO Website
      • Invention Agreements
        • What is an NDA and when to use them?
        • How to use a contract to protect your invention?
        • Working with others without losing your IP rights
        • Patent Assignments for Independent Contractors
        • Losing Invention Rights When Hiring or Collaborating with Others
        • Avoid Problems: Get an Invention Assignment Agreement
      • Protect Inventions
        • Misconceptions of Provisional Patent Applications
        • Do you need to get your patent attorney to sign an NDA?
        • Can a confidentiality agreement protect me like a patent application?
        • Four types of intellectual property to protect your idea and how to use them
          • Overview of Patents and Intellectual Property
          • Patent protection benefits and why every inventor should consider getting one
          • 8 tips to successfully protect your idea
          • Benefits of Patent Protection
          • Best uses for design patents
        • Reasons to only market your invention after securing patent pendency
          • Dangers of 1 yr grace period under first-inventor-to-file system
          • File a patent application before telling others about the invention
        • Risks and benefits of securing software patent protection
          • Strategy to overcome patentable subject matter rejection
        • Pros and cons of filing a continuation-in-part application
          • What is a continuation patent application?
      • How Patent Applications Work: the Basics
        • How to respond to an office action?
        • Request for non-publication of a patent application
        • Anatomy of a Patent Document
        • How to write a broad patent application?
        • Design patents: pros and cons
      • Patent costs
        • How much does it cost to get a utility patent?
        • Provisional Patent Application: Cheap Alternative?
        • Patent Cost Framework and cash flow
        • Provisional patent application: a cheap option?
        • Cheap provisional patent applications
      • Patent infringement
        • Basics of writing a patent claim for a patent application
        • Patent Marking: Everything you wanted to know
        • Avoiding Patent Infringement
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product?
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product? (Design Patent)
      • Worldwide patents
        • Pros and cons of securing worldwide patent protection and their steps
        • Foreign patent filing to secure protection in other countries
      • Responding to Office Actions
        • Overview of Office Actions
      • Trademarks
        • Trademark Registration: common law, state and federal
        • How to obtain a federal trademark registration?
        • How to select a trademark?
          • Protect your idea when pitching to an investor, potential licensee, or buyer
  • Schedule Consultation
  • Contact

Top-Rated Orange County Patent Lawyer | Helping Inventors in Orange County, Los Angeles County & Beyond | OC Patent Lawyer, Irvine CA

Orange County Patent Attorney

(949) 433-0900
You are here: Home / Patent Infringement / Patent Damages / S.Ct. revamps enhanced damages for patent infringement

S.Ct. revamps enhanced damages for patent infringement

July 5, 2016 by James Yang

Enhanced DamagesSummary of Halo case

In Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. (S.Ct. June 13, 2016), the Supreme Court recently redefined the standard for determining when enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. §284 are appropriate and when the Federal Circuit during the appellate review can reverse the decision of the district court to award or withhold enhanced damages.

Halo directly overruled Seagate which was the current standard for determining when enhanced damages for patent infringement were appropriate.  Thus, we will discuss Seagate and how Halo changed the law of enhanced damages.

Summary of Seagate two-part test for enhanced damages and the problem

In In re: Seagate Technologies, LLC, the Federal Circuit previously adopted a two-part test for determining when a district court may increase damages for patent infringement pursuant to §284. First, the patent owner must show clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent. Second, the patentee must demonstrate, again by clear and convincing evidence, that the risk of infringement was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer.

In the instant case, two enhanced damages cases were reviewed by the Supreme Court. At the district court in Halo v. Pulse, the jury found that Pulse had infringed Halo’s patents and that there was a high probability it had done so willfully. Nevertheless, the district court declined to award enhanced damages under §284 because Pulse had at trial presented a defense that was neither objectively baseless nor a sham. Regardless of the subjective intent of the infringer at the time of the infringing conduct, because the alleged infringer had presented a reasonable defense at trial, the objective part of the Seagate test did not permit the district court to award enhanced damages to the patent owner.

In Stryker v. Zimmer, the jury heard testimony that Zimmer had “all – but instructed its design team to copy Stryker’s products … while opting to worry about potential legal consequences later.” Nevertheless, the district court concluded that enhanced damages were unavailable because Zimmer had asserted reasonable defenses at trial.

In both instances, the objective prong of the two-part test focused on the reasonable defenses presented at trial regardless of the infringer’s state of mind at the time of the infringing conduct.

Holding of S.Ct. Halo case

In the Seagate test, the objective prong is a threshold question, meaning that the subjective intent of the infringer is ignored unless there is no reasonable defense regardless of when the accused infringer knew of the reasonable defense.  The Supreme Court felt that this was unfair to prohibit the district court from awarding enhanced damages even in cases of willful infringement.  The rigidity of the Seagate test did not allow the district court to exercise its discretion in punishing culpable offenders.

The Supreme Court stated that:

“the principal problem with Seagate‘s two-part test is that it requires a finding of objective recklessness in every case before district courts can award enhanced damages. Such a threshold requirement excludes from discretionary punishment many of the culpable offenders, such as the ’wanton and malicious pirate’ who intentionally infringes another’s patent – with no doubts about its validity or any notion of a defense – for no purpose other than to steal the patentee’s business.”

A narrow reading of the Supreme Court’s Halo v. Pulse opinion is that the Seagate two-part test was not completely thrown out but needs an overhaul to address the concerns identified by the Supreme Court. To retain the Seagate two-part test, the first and second parts of the Seagate test must be decoupled. The objective recklessness part of the test cannot be a threshold issue but only a factor in determining whether the district court can award enhanced damages.

More likely, in my reading of the case, the Supreme Court is requiring the Federal Circuit to create a loose framework so that the district court may exercise its discretion in awarding enhanced damages if the situation warrants such punitive action by the court. The Supreme Court repeatedly stated that enhanced damages are for egregious cases only and that egregious cases can be described as “willful, wanton, malicious, bad-faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or – indeed – characteristic of a pirate.” As for which cases or circumstances are egregious, the Supreme Court repeatedly referred to 200 years of case law that provide guidance as to which cases are egregious and which are not.

The Supreme Court recognized that the rigid rules of the Seagate case set forth by the Federal Circuit come from a genuine concern that the district courts might award enhanced damages too readily. But, the Supreme Court reiterated that the long history of the courts in deciding egregious conduct provides sufficient limits on the district court in determining which conduct is egregious and which is not.

The Supreme Court also struck down the clear and convincing evidence standard for establishing eligibility for enhanced damages and stated that the proper standard is a preponderance of the evidence which is easier to meet. Moreover, the Supreme Court struck down the standard for appellate review and held that the standard for appellate review shall be an abuse of discretion standard.    The abuse of discretion standard all but guarantees that any enhanced damages award will be upheld by the Federal Circuit.

The Halo case gives district courts more power over defendants since they have greater discretion in awarding enhanced damages when the district court feels that the actions of the infringer are egregious.

I invite you to contact me with your patent questions. Please feel free to forward this article to your friends. As an Orange County Patent Attorney, I serve Orange County, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego, and surrounding cities.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Author

James Yang is a patent attorney. For more than 16 years, James Yang has been representing clients to secure patent protection for their inventions and register trademarks to protect their brands. If you need help, call him at (949) 433-0900. Read More…

Popular Posts

  • Patent process overview
  • Patent process explained
  • How much does a patent cost?
  • Why patent your invention in a bad economy?

Patent Book

Navigating the Patent System - new book by Orange County patent attorney, James Yang

Navigating the Patent System: Learn the patent process and strategies to protect your invention

Read for Free
Buy at Amazon

RECEIVE PATENT ARTICLES

Stay up to date on major changes and get tips on the patent process.

We respect your privacy.

Popular Posts

Patent process overview
Patent process explained
How much does a patent cost?
Trademark process and costs
Patent process and costs

 

Services

Utility Patents
Design Patents
Patent Prosecution Services
Patent Defense Services
Patent-Law Counsel for In-House Attorneys
Trademark Prosecution Services
See All Services

Industries

Automotive Patents
Consumer Products Patents
Culinary Patents
Manufacturing Patents
Medical Patents
Optics Patents
Software & App Patents
See All Industries

Contact

James Yang
OC Patent Lawyer
2372 Morse Ave., Suite #178
Irvine, CA 92614
Tel: (949) 433-0900

Connect

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn

Sitemaps

Sitemap: Pages | Sitemap: Posts

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

By accessing this blog, you agree that no attorney-client relationship is formed except by a subsequent written retainer agreement. Also, you agree to not send confidential information unless directed by me to do so. The information posted on this blog is legal information and not legal advice.
Complete Terms of Use
Complete Privacy Policy

ADA Compliance

OC Patent Lawyer aims to ensure that its services are accessible to people with disabilities.
Accessibility Statement

Service Area

From our office in Irvine, California, we serve clients from all areas within Orange County and Los Angeles County, California.

© 2023 · James Yang, Your Entrepreneur and Mid-Size Business Patent Attorney