{"id":1218,"date":"2016-09-21T19:44:02","date_gmt":"2016-09-21T23:44:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1218"},"modified":"2016-09-22T11:01:46","modified_gmt":"2016-09-22T15:01:46","slug":"federal-circuit-remands-issue-of-enhanced-damages-for-determination-whether-this-was-an-egregious-case-of-misconduct-beyond-typical-infringement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1218","title":{"rendered":"Federal Circuit Remands Issue of Enhanced Damages for Determination Whether This was an Egregious Case of Misconduct Beyond Typical Infringement"},"content":{"rendered":"

In\u00a0WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp.<\/em>,\u00a0[2013-1527, 2014-1121, 2014-1526] (September 21, 2016), the Federal Circuit, on remand from the Supreme Court after\u00a0Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., vacated the district court’s judgment with respect to enhanced damages, but reinstated its earlier opinion and judgment in all other respects.<\/p>\n

The district court found that WesternGeco prevailed on the subjective prong of the two-part In re Seagate<\/em> test, but not the objective prong, and denied enhanced damages for willful infringement. \u00a0The Supreme Court\u00a0removed the objective prong in Halo,\u00a0so the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the case for the district court to address enhanced damages under the new standard set forth in Halo, giving district courts greater discretion in awarding enhanced damages in\u00a0cases where the defendant\u2019s infringement was egregious,\u00a0cases \u201ctypified by willful misconduct.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit said that the\u00a0principal problem the Supreme Court had with with
\nSeagate\u2019s two-part test was that it requires a finding of\u00a0objective recklessness in every case before district courts\u00a0may award enhanced damages: “The subjective willfulness
\nof a patent infringer, intentional or knowing, may warrant\u00a0enhanced damages, without regard to whether his\u00a0infringement was objectively reckless.”<\/p>\n

If willfulness is established, the question of enhanced\u00a0damages must be left to the district court\u2019s discretion. \u00a0However, nothing says\u00a0that enhanced damages\u00a0must follow a finding of egregious misconduct. As\u00a0with any exercise of discretion, courts should continue to\u00a0take into account the particular circumstances of each\u00a0case in deciding whether to award damages, and in what\u00a0amount. Section 284 permits district courts to exercise\u00a0their discretion in a manner free from the inelastic constraints\u00a0of the Seagate test.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit said that\u00a0after Halo, the objective reasonableness of the accused
\ninfringer\u2019s positions can still be relevant for the\u00a0district court to consider when exercising its discretion. \u00a0The Federal Circuit noted that the Supreme\u00a0Court itself has said that district courts should exercise their\u00a0discretion, taking into account the particular circumstances\u00a0of each case,\u201d and consider all relevant factors in\u00a0determining whether to award enhanced damages.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit said\u00a0that on remand the district court must review the sufficiency of the evidence of willfulness as a\u00a0predicate to any award of enhanced damages, mindful of\u00a0Halo\u2019s replacement of Seagate\u2019s clear-and-convincing\u00a0evidence standard with the \u201cpreponderance of the evidence\u00a0standard.\u201d \u00a0Then the district court must consider\u00a0whether enhanced damages should be\u00a0awarded, and specifically whether the infringement constituted\u00a0an egregious case of misconduct beyond typical infringement\u00a0meriting enhanced damages under \u00a7 284 and,\u00a0if so, the appropriate extent of the enhancement.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In\u00a0WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp.,\u00a0[2013-1527, 2014-1121, 2014-1526] (September 21, 2016), the Federal Circuit, on remand from the Supreme Court after\u00a0Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., vacated the district court’s judgment with respect to enhanced damages, but reinstated its … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[35],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1218","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-danages"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1218","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1218"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1218\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1226,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1218\/revisions\/1226"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1218"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1218"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1218"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}