Halo Electronics Inc. v. Pulse Electronics Inc.; Stryker Corporation, et al. v. Zimmer, Inc.
Issues
Should patentees have to show that defendants willfully infringed their patents to receive enhanced damages?
In this consolidated case, the Supreme Court must determine the correct interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 284, which provides enhanced damages in patent infringement cases. Currently, plaintiffs must show that defendants “willfully infringed” to obtain enhanced damages. Courts employ a two-prong test, with subjective and objective elements. The objective element requires plaintiffs to show “by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted” patent infringement. In separate actions, petitioners Halo Electronics Inc. and Stryker Corp. sued respondents Pulse Electronics Inc. and Zimmer Inc. respectively for patent infringement. In each case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that Halo and Stryker failed to satisfy the objective prong of the willfulness test. But Halo and Stryker argue that the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of objective willfulness is unfairly burdensome and should be replaced by a totality-of-the-circumstances standard. Pulse and Zimmer contend that the objective willfulness standard properly allows only culpable infringers to pay punitive damages, in accord with the historical purpose of punitive damages. The Court’s decision may affect how plaintiffs prove infringement, and whether culpable infringers escape liability.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Did the Federal Circuit err by applying a rigid, two-part test for enhancing patent infringement damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, that is the same as the rigid, two-part test this Court rejected last term in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014) for imposing attorney fees under the similarly-worded 35 U.S.C. § 285?
Halo Electronics Inc. (“Halo”) and Pulse Electronics Inc. (“Pulse”) make surface mount transformers, a component in electronic devices such as internet routers. See Halo Electronics Inc. v. Pulse Electronics Inc., 769 F.3d 1371, 1374–75 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Prior to the 1990s, surface mount transformers would often overheat and crack, causing the device to fail.
Edited by
Additional Resources
Robert H. Fischer and Whitney L. Meier, The Supreme Court Grants Certiorari to Review the Standards for Recovery of Enhanced Patent Damages, Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto (Oct. 20, 2015).
Joe Mullin, Supreme Court Takes 1st Patent Case of Term, and Plaintiffs Could Benefit, Ars Technica (Oct. 20, 2015).