Re Willful Infringement, “Channel” It, Says the Supreme Court

The Seagate two-part test for enhanced patent infringement damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 — (1) objectively, infringement was not a close call, and (2) subjectively, the defendant knew or obviously should have known that — is gone.  So too is the patentee’s burden to prove entitlement to enhanced damages by clear and convincing evidence.  The Supreme Court has so ruled, in today’s opinion in Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics. What replaces Seagate?  It’s hard to say, but this much we know: (1) Now, enhanced damages awards are to be decided in the trial court’s discretion, and are to be reviewed   Read More »

Posted in IP and Technology Litigation, Patent Litigation | Tagged , ,

Share this Article: