After the jury finds subjective willfulness, the judge decides whether to enhance damages

Halo v. Pulse was decided by the Federal Circuit on August 5, 2016 on appeal from the District of Nevada, on remand from the Supreme Court. There, a jury found that defendant Pulse had infringed plaintiff Halo’s patent, and that the infringement was probably willful. Applying the then-standard Seagate, the district …

Question of subjective willful misconduct is for the jury

Innovention v. MGA is a nonprecedential case decided on August 5, 2016 on appeal from the Eastern District of Louisiana. There, the district court, after a jury trial finding willfulness, awarded enhanced damages (on Seagate’s clear and convincing standard for willfulness) and attorney fees for defendant MGA’s infringement. The Federal Circuit …

Enhancement affirmed because defendant knew of the patents at the time of infringement

Wbip v. Kohler was decided on July 19, 2016 on appeal from the District of Massachusetts. There, a jury found that defendant Kohler infringed all the asserted claims, that the asserted claims were not invalid, and that Kohler’s infringement was willful (under Seagate’s clear and convincing standard). After the verdict, the district …

Supreme Court relaxes willfulness standard: objective recklessness no longer required

Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics was decided by the Supreme Court on June 13, 2016 on appeal from the District of Nevada. There, a jury found that defendant Pulse had infringed plaintiff Halo’s patent, and that the infringement was probably willful. Applying the then-standard Seagate, the district court declined to enhance …