On March 16, 2022, U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California certified two of the hot button issues splitting district courts on the standard for pleading willful infringement (see order),...more
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
What should a prudent corporate executive do when he or she becomes aware that the corporation’s activities might be alleged to be infringing a United States patent? Some recent Supreme Court decisions have led to a revival...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
Kilpatrick Townsend Partner James Isbester recently addressed the Intellectual Property Section of the Contra Costa County Bar Association at a CLE event held at the firm’s Walnut Creek office. The presentation, “When Is an...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
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded a no willful infringement finding back to the district court to be reconsidered under the Supreme Court of the United States’ Halo decision. Alfred E. Mann Foundation...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
Fraud-Detection Patent Claimed Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter - In FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-1985, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that FairWarning’s patent...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
With the Supreme Court’s decision in Halo Electronics overruling the 2007 Seagate case, non-practicing entities (“NPEs”) may resume an old, familiar practice to enable them to make a case for willful infringement. See Halo...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