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
What evidence does an employer need to show a court to prove it correctly classified employees as exempt from minimum wage and overtime pay? The Supreme Court announced on June 17 that it will address a disagreement among...more
On January 23, 2020, the Federal Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a scathing decision that has garnered much attention. (Baez-Sanchez v. Barr, No. 19-1642 (7th Cir. 2020). It was not the merits of the...more
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
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 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
I expect that that most lawyers can explain the difference between the “burden of proof” and the “standard of proof”. Some lawyers might be more challenged in distinguishing between “standard of proof” and “standard of...more