WesternGeco v. ION was decided on September 21, 2016 on appeal from the Southern District of Texas. The case was on remand from the Supreme Court in light of Halo v. Pulse. At the district court, the jury found infringement and no invalidity as to all asserted claims, and awarded Plaintiff-WesternGeco lost profits and a reasonable royalty. The jury also found Defendant-ION’s infringement had been subjectively reckless under the then-prevailing Seagate test. Upon WesternGeco’s motion for enhanced damages, the district court held that ION was not a willful infringer because the objective prong of Seagate hadn’t been met (ION’s litigation positions were reasonable and not objectively baseless). The district court didn’t reach ION’s motion to set aside the jury finding of subjective recklessness. ION appealed to the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the case under Seagate. Upon deciding Halo, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Federal Circuit decision.
Because Halo concerned only enhanced damages, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s determination of no willfulness, and reinstated all other portions of its earlier opinion.
The Court then stated the law of enhanced damages after Halo: if subjective willfulness is shown, the question of enhanced damages must be left to the district court’s discretion based on all the circumstances of the case. And objective reasonableness is a relevant factor in this discretionary inquiry.
Because Halo rejected the Seagate requirement of objective recklessness, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s determination of no willful infringement (which was based on a finding of no objective recklessness). On remand, the district court is to review whether the jury finding of subjective willfulness is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. If the jury finding of subjective willfulness is sustained, the district court will then determine whether enhanced damages should be awarded.
Judge Wallach dissented in part. He joined the majority opinion to the extent that it applied Halo, but dissented to the extent that it reinstated the earlier opinion “in all other respects.” Judge Wallach believed that a key issue left unaddressed by the reinstated opinion is: “When a patent holder successfully demonstrates both patent infringement under United States law and foreign lost profits, what degree of connection must exist between the two before the foreign activity may be used to measure the plaintiff’s damages?” He faulted the majority for avoiding the question. By reinstating the previous opinion, Judge Wallach argues, the majority erroneously suggests that extraterritorial use of an invention patented in the U.S. cuts off the chain of causation initiated by domestic infringement. According the Judge Wallach, plaintiffs who show infringement in the US should be able to rely on foreign activities to measure damages when “there is a sufficient connection between the infringement and the foreign activity.”
So, he should visit a general physician to know all what I am buy viagra pill doing. According to a recent survey in US most of divorce cases were filed from women not satisfied with their sex lives like they were in generic sildenafil online the past. When it comes to different kinds of medications, they generic viagra purchase can sometimes cost more than we like or prefer them to. It reduces the sexual pleasure and makes your tadalafil 20mg generic penile organ more rigid.