Under Seagate<\/em>, a patent owner must first show by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent. Second, the patentee must demonstrate, again by clear and convincing evidence, that the risk of infringement was either known or so obvious that it should have been\u00a0known to the accused infringer. \u00a0The Supreme Court said that this test is not consistent with 35 USC 284.<\/p>\n \u00a7284 provides simply that \u201cthe\u00a0court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.\u201d \u00a0The Supreme Court noted that the statute\u00a0contains no explicit limit or condition, and that the word “may” clearly connotes discretion. \u00a0However discretion is not without limits:\u00a0a\u00a0motion to a court\u2019s discretion is a motion, not to its inclination, but to its judgment; and its judgment is to be guided by sound legal principles.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court instructed that\u00a0awards of enhanced damages under the Patent Act over the past 180 years establish that they are not to be meted out in a typical infringement case, but are instead designed as a \u201cpunitive\u201d or \u201cvindictive\u201d sanction for egregious infringement behavior. The Court said that:<\/p>\n The sort of conduct warranting enhanced damages has been variously described in our cases as willful, wanton, malicious, bad-faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or\u2014indeed\u2014characteristic of a pirate.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Seagate reflects a sound recognition that enhanced damages are generally appropriate under \u00a7284 only in egregious cases, but the Supreme Court found the test “unduly rigid, and it impermissibly encumbers the statutory grant of discretion to district courts.\u201d \u00a0In particular, the court was critical of the requirement of a showing of objective recklessness, finding no reason for the requirement in the\u00a0context of deliberate wrongdoing. \u00a0The Federal Circuit said that\u00a0the requirement of objective recklessness\u00a0insulates an infringer from enhanced damages, so long has he or she can mount a reasonable defense, even if he did not act on the basis of a\u00a0\u00a0defense or was even aware of it. The Supreme Court complaint that:<\/p>\n Under that standard, someone who plunders a patent\u2014in- fringing it without any reason to suppose his conduct is arguably defensible\u2014can nevertheless escape any come- uppance under \u00a7284 solely on the strength of his attorney\u2019s ingenuity.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Supreme Court said that\u00a0culpability is generally measured against the knowledge of the actor at the time of the challenged conduct. \u00a0The Court found no reason to\u00a0look to facts that the defendant neither knew nor had reason to know at the time he acted. \u00a0The Court said that\u00a0Section 284 allows district courts to punish the full range of culpable behavior, although nothing says they must do so. As with any exercise of discretion, courts should continue to take into account the particular circumstances of each case in deciding whether to award damages, and in what amount. Consistent with nearly two centuries of enhanced damages under patent law, however, such punishment should generally be reserved for egregious cases typified by willful misconduct.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. —\u00a0(2016), the Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s two-step Seagate test for the award of enhanced damages under 35 USC 284, holding that the aware of enhanced damages was within … Continue reading ![\"Halo\"](\"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/Halo.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n