By Memorandum Opinion entered on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case 20-1685 (Fed. Cir. September 28, 2021), the Federal Circuit...more
On July 13, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, in Mich. Motor Techs., v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, No. 19-10485, granted Volkswagen’s motion to dismiss Michigan Motor Technologies’...more
In Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.,1 the Supreme Court held that 35 U.S.C. Section 284 provides for enhanced damages in egregious cases...more
Enhanced Damages Under the Patent Act - The Patent Act provides that once infringement has been established, a district court may “increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.” 35 U.S.C. § 284. The...more
The Supreme Court in Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 1932, 195 L. Ed. 2d 278 (2016), relaxed the standard for a finding of willful patent infringement under 35 USC Section 284. The “objective...more
Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more
Last month, following a jury verdict in federal district court in Delaware awarding Plaintiff Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC $2.54 billion in damages—“the largest damages verdict ever returned in a patent [infringement]...more
This short article aims to review recent trends in findings of willful patent infringement and enhanced damages, both in volume of motions made and the success rate of those motions. However, to appreciate current trends...more
In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in the case of Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. making it easier for courts to find willful infringement in patent cases and award enhanced damages. Prior to...more
After a decade of atrophy, opinions of counsel may again be an essential part of any defensive patent strategy due to recent changes in the law. The Supreme Court in Halo overruled the Federal Circuit’s Seagate test for...more
Just over a year ago, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016). Halo abrogated the Federal Circuit’s two-part willfulness test, which the Federal...more
Historically, patent owners have pled willful infringement in an effort to support the collection of enhanced damages from an infringer. Typically, if there was willful infringement the damages were enhanced and often...more
On February 10, 2017, an Illinois federal judge determined that R-Boc Representatives violated an injunction issued following a jury trial on their alleged patent infringement. In a unique opinion replete with quotations...more
Although the Supreme Court’s increased engagement with patent law over the last decade has generally been viewed as positive for parties accused of patent infringement, its recent decision in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse...more
#10 Design Patent Damages § 289 - Samsung Elecs. Co., v. Apple Inc., 580 U.S. _ (Dec. 6, 2016) - In the case of a multicomponent product, the relevant article of manufacture for arriving at a damages award under...more
This article analyzes how district courts have addressed the sufficiency of pleading enhanced damages after Halo at the motion to dismiss stage. (The first article in this two-part series considered district court decisions...more
This article considers district court decisions on enhanced damages issued within the first six months after Halo, particularly focusing on the factors that influence whether enhanced damages are ultimately awarded. Our...more
After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its tenth annual list of top patent stories. For 2016, we identified twenty stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe...more
Since the Supreme Court decision in Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics came down earlier this year (as previously discussed here), district courts across the country have been grappling with the high court’s new standard...more
Withdrawal of Claims During Prosecution Can Trigger Prosecution History Estoppel In UCB, Inc. v. Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd., Appeal No. 2015-1957, the Federal Circuit held that prosecution estoppel can apply even...more
In two recent decisions addressing the issue of willful infringement, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recalled its mandate, vacated portions of earlier decisions and remanded to the district court the...more
Federal Circuit After Stryker/Halo - Why it matters: On June 13, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the consolidated cases of Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc. and Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. and, as...more
On remand from the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court that defendant ION Geophysical Corporation (ION) does not willfully infringe the asserted patents of plaintiff WesternGeco...more
Claims Directed to Monitoring and Analyzing Data Held to Be Invalid under § 101 - In Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., Appeal No. 2015-1778, the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s grant of summary...more
The U.S. patent system has long struggled to strike a balance that both encourages patent rights and prevents patent abuse. Finding that balance requires giving patent owners the right amount of patent enforcement power,...more