Religious Use Law in South Florida
Trade secret litigation after the Defend Trade Secrets Act
I-13 – Policies, Policies, Policies, and Microchips Embedded in Employees
The general consensus is that the Supreme Court’s June decision in Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics eased the path to proving willfulness, as discussed previously on IP Litigation Current. Many speculated that one result...more
Supreme Court Expands Discretion to Award Enhanced Damages for Patent Infringement and Eliminates the Federal Circuit’s ‘Seagate Test’ - In Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court...more
The Supreme Court of the United States traced two centuries of analysis related to enhanced damages in patent cases to conclude that the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s two-part test, announced nearly a decade...more
Section 284 of the Patent Act provides that, in the event of damages for patent infringement, “the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.” In 2007, the Federal Circuit in In re Seagate...more
On June 13, 2016, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in two consolidated cases (Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer) effectively lowering the standard for obtaining enhanced damages in...more
On Monday, in a significant victory for patent owners, the U.S. Supreme Court swept away the Federal Circuit’s “inelastic” framework for assessing enhanced patent damages and found that 35 U.S.C. § 284 means what it says:...more
On June 13, 2016, in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. ___ (2016), the Supreme Court unanimously abrogated the Federal Circuit’s 2007 decision in In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir....more
Section 284 of The Patent Act provides that in a case of infringement, courts “may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.” Under Seagate, to be entitled to enhanced damages under § 284, a patent...more
Patent infringers take note: clever defenses by ingenious litigation counsel may come too late to save you from an award of exemplary damages. On Monday, June 13, in Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics and Stryker Corp. v....more
The Supreme Court has made it easier for patent owners to prove willful infringement and entitlement to enhanced damages. In a unanimous opinion issued yesterday in a pair of cases decided together, Halo Electronics, Inc. v....more
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated, combined decision in Halo v. Pulse Electronics and Stryker v. Zimmer, relaxing the standard for awarding enhanced damages in patent litigation under 35 U.S.C. §...more
In a unanimous decision yesterday, the Supreme Court eliminated the requirement that patentees must show that an infringer was objectively reckless in order to obtain enhanced patent damages. The decision returned to the...more
On June 13, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States set forth a new standard for awarding enhanced damages in patent infringement cases by striking down the Federal Circuit’s en banc Seagate framework as an “artificial...more
Unlike Cher, the U.S. Supreme Court can turn back time. In Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics, the Court unanimously upended the law on enhanced damages for willful patent infringement set forth in by the Federal Circuit...more
On Monday, June 13, a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States made it easier for patent holders to receive damages from infringers. In the case of Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., Docket No....more
On June 13, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Halo v. Pulse, overturning the Federal Circuit’s long-standing two-step test for willfulness and enhanced damages in patent-infringement cases. The Court’s ruling...more
The decision, which affects enhanced patent infringement damages, restores the statutory discretion of district courts, whose exercise of discretion should be channeled by sound legal principles limiting the award of enhanced...more
On June 13, 2016, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Federal Circuit’s current standard for awarding enhanced patent damages, finding it too rigid and inconsistent with the enhanced damages statute, 35 U.S.C. §284. As...more
On June 13, 2016, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, that an award of enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 should be within the sound discretion of a district court, albeit...more
The aphorism that "[t]he race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet," variously attributed to Damon Runyon, Franklin P. Adams, and Hugh Keough, could readily be updated to include...more
In a unanimous decision issued on June 13, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., relaxed the standard for awards of enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. In so ruling, the Court...more