Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.

Last updated

Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 23, 2016
Decided June 13, 2016
Full case nameHalo Electronics, Inc., Petitioner v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.
Docket nos. 14-1513
14-1520
Citations579 U.S. 93 ( more )
136 S. Ct. 1923; 195 L. Ed. 2d 278; 2016 U.S. LEXIS 3776; 84 U.S.L.W. 4386; 118 U.S.P.Q.2d 1761
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
PriorAffirmed, 769 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014); cert. granted, 136 S.Ct. 356 (2015)
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts, joined by unanimous
ConcurrenceBreyer, joined by Kennedy, Alito

Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. 93 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the two-part Seagate test, used to determine when a district court may increase damages for patent infringement, is not consistent with Section 284 of the Patent Act. [1] [2]

Contents

Background

Halo and Pulse were manufacturers of electronic components that could be mounted on circuit boards used in, among other things, network routers. In 2002, Halo approached Pulse regarding licensing its patents. In response, Pulse's president asked an engineer to review Halo's patents to determine whether Pulse had infringed them. After studying the patents, Pulse's engineer believed that Halo's patents were invalid and thus there was no need to license them. In 2007, Halo filed suit against Pulse in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada for patent infringement. At trial, a jury found that Pulse had infringed Halo's patents, that Pulse's infringement was willful, and that Pulse should pay Halo $1.5 million in reasonable royalty damages. The district court allowed the verdict to stand as to infringement and damages but subsequently overturned the jury's finding of willfulness, believing that it was contrary to the Federal Circuit's Seagate test, which allowed willful infringement only in cases where a defendant had been "objectively reckless" in infringing a plaintiff's patents. Here, the district court concluded that Pulse's belief that the patents were invalid precluded any finding of willful infringement. [3]

Halo appealed the district court's reversal of the willfulness verdict to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit subsequently affirmed the district court's decision to overturn the willfulness verdict, holding that Pulse had presented evidence at trial that its belief in the invalidity of the patents was reasonable and not objectively reckless. [3]

Halo appealed the Federal Circuit's decision to the United States Supreme Court. On October 19, 2015, the Court agreed to hear Halo's appeal. Oral argument took place on February 23, 2016, and the Court issued its opinion on June 13, 2016. [2]

Opinion of the Court

Chief Justice John Roberts issued the opinion for a unanimous court. Official roberts CJ.jpg
Chief Justice John Roberts issued the opinion for a unanimous court.

Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice John Roberts issued an opinion reversing the Federal Circuit and overruling the Seagate test. After surveying the history of the willful infringement statute, Chief Justice Roberts observed that the text of Section 284, which states that, if a defendant is found to infringe, "the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed." The Court held that this broad standard was incompatible with the narrow, specific requirement of the Seagate test that the infringer have acted in an "objectively reckless" manner. The Court criticized the Seagate test as incentivizing infringers to concoct defenses with the goal of appearing reasonable, even if those defenses were weak or created solely for the purposes of avoid a willfulness verdict. The Court also criticized the Seagate test as requiring "clear and convincing evidence" of willfulness given that this heightened standard of proof did not appear in the text of Section 284. The Court also directed the Federal Circuit to adopt a more deferential standard of review towards district court findings of willfulness. [4]

Justice Stephen Breyer issued a concurring opinion. Stephen Breyer, SCOTUS photo portrait.jpg
Justice Stephen Breyer issued a concurring opinion.

Justice Stephen Breyer issued a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito. Justice Breyer wrote separately to emphasize three points. First, Justice Breyer observed that evidence showing only knowledge of a patent would likely not meet the standard for willful infringement. Rather, in Justice Breyer's view, willful infringement would require both knowledge of the patent and some additional evidence of egregious conduct by the defendant. Second, Justice Breyer noted that Section 298 of the Patent Act prevents a fact-finder (such as a jury or judge) from considering evidence that a defendant failed to obtain the advice of counsel prior to infringing the patent. Third, Justice Breyer noted that any damages awarded for willful infringement should not be used to compensate a plaintiff for the cost of bringing suit as those costs are already subject to being awarded under Section 285 of the Patent Act. Justice Breyer explained that he was raising these points to emphasize that a finding of willful infringement should only occur in cases of "egregious misconduct" and that courts should be wary of plaintiffs seeking to use the threat of willful infringement to coerce a settlement or otherwise deter lawful conduct by defendants. [4]

Subsequent proceedings

Following the Supreme Court's ruling, the case was remanded to the Federal Circuit for further proceedings. On August 5, 2016, the Federal Circuit subsequently vacated the district court's prior order overturning the willfulness verdict and remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration of that decision. [5] On September 6, 2017, the district court again denied Halo's request for enhanced damages, determining that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Pulse had acted in an egregious manner or like a "pirate." [6]

Reactions to the Supreme Court's decision

Reaction to the Supreme Court's decision was mixed with some commentators praising the Court's decision to eliminate the Federal Circuit's restrictive Seagate test, while others expressed concern at the lack of clarity about when willfulness findings would be warranted going forward. [7] Writing for IPWatchdog on the decision's fifth anniversary, Michael Cicero noted that subsequent decisions applying the Supreme Court's opinion had "lacked consistency" and that the Court's decision had only generated new questions surrounding when willfulness claims were warranted. [8] Finally, at SCOTUSBlog, Ronald Mann interpreted the Court's decision as emblematic of the Supreme Court's repeated frustration with the Federal Circuit and its overeagerness to construct tests that were not reflected in controlling statutory language. [9]

Related Research Articles

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously determined that an injunction should not be automatically issued based on a finding of patent infringement, but also that an injunction should not be denied simply on the basis that the plaintiff does not practice the patented invention. Instead, a federal court must still weigh what the Court described as the four-factor test traditionally used to determine if an injunction should be issued.

Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., is an American legal case involving the computer printer company Lexmark, which had designed an authentication system using a microcontroller so that only authorized toner cartridges could be used. The resulting litigation has resulted in significant decisions affecting United States intellectual property and trademark law.

LabCorp v. Metabolite, Inc., 548 U.S. 124 (2006), is the first case since Diamond v. Chakrabarty in which the U.S. Supreme Court indicated a renewed interest in examining the limits of patentable subject matter for advances in life sciences. Although the Court initially agreed to hear the case, it was later dismissed in 2006 with three Justices dissenting. The defendant's petition to the Supreme Court raised an issue not addressed in opinions from the lower courts: the claim at issue was directed to patent ineligible subject matter and therefore invalid.

Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for determining the patent eligibility of a process, but rather "a useful and important clue, an investigative tool, for determining whether some claimed inventions are processes under § 101." In so doing, the Supreme Court affirmed the rejection of an application for a patent on a method of hedging losses in one segment of the energy industry by making investments in other segments of that industry, on the basis that the abstract investment strategy set forth in the application was not patentable subject matter.

Fujifilm Corp v. Benun, 605 F.3d 1366 was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment made by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey that the defendants infringed patents owned by Fujifilm Corporation.

Powell v. The Home Depot USA, Inc., 663 F.3d 1221, was a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the issue of patent infringement on a "safe hands" device that Michael Powell, an independent contractor for Home Depot, created in response to injuries to the hands of associates using in-store radial arm saws. Powell invented and patented a device that eliminated the risk of injury. The Home Depot refused to pay Powell for the device and began installing the safety device on its saws without permission. In 2007, Powell sued The Home Depot for patent infringement. After a jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Powell was awarded damages totaling $20.8 million.

Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case. The case considered whether a party, in order to "actively [induce] infringement of a patent" under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), must know that the induced act constitutes patent infringement, or whether deliberate indifference to the existence of a patent can be considered a form of actual knowledge. In an 8–1 decision delivered by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court held that induced infringement requires knowledge of patent infringement, but because the petitioners had knowledge of a patent infringement lawsuit involving the respondent and Sunbeam Products over the same invention, the Federal Circuit's judgement that petitioners induced infringement must be affirmed under the doctrine of willful blindness.

TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp. is a case stretching from 2004 to 2011, which took place in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. TiVo Inc. sued EchoStar Corp. claiming patent infringement of a DVR technology. The issues addressed during litigation included patent infringement, wording of injunctions, infringing product redesign, contempt of court orders, and contempt sanctions. Ultimately, the court held that EchoStar Corp. had indeed infringed TiVo Inc's patent and was in contempt of court for noncompliance of an injunction. The parties reached a settlement wherein EchoStar Corp. paid TiVo Inc. a licensing fee. Further, the court replaced the established contempt test with a single step test. The simplified test makes it more difficult for patent holders to prove contempt as a result of repeat infringement.

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. was the first of a series of ongoing lawsuits between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics regarding the design of smartphones and tablet computers; between them, the companies made more than half of smartphones sold worldwide as of July 2012. In the spring of 2011, Apple began litigating against Samsung in patent infringement suits, while Apple and Motorola Mobility were already engaged in a patent war on several fronts. Apple's multinational litigation over technology patents became known as part of the mobile device "smartphone patent wars": extensive litigation in fierce competition in the global market for consumer mobile communications. By August 2011, Apple and Samsung were litigating 19 ongoing cases in nine countries; by October, the legal disputes expanded to ten countries. By July 2012, the two companies were still embroiled in more than 50 lawsuits around the globe, with billions of dollars in damages claimed between them. While Apple won a ruling in its favor in the U.S., Samsung won rulings in South Korea, Japan, and the UK. On June 4, 2013, Samsung won a limited ban from the U.S. International Trade Commission on sales of certain Apple products after the commission found Apple had violated a Samsung patent, but this was vetoed by U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman.

Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision related to the nature of computer code and copyright law. The dispute centered on the use of parts of the Java programming language's application programming interfaces (APIs) and about 11,000 lines of source code, which are owned by Oracle, within early versions of the Android operating system by Google. Google has since transitioned Android to a copyright-unburdened engine without the source code, and has admitted to using the APIs but claimed this was within fair use.

Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, was a patent lawsuit originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197 (2010), was a patent infringement case by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit involving "proactive scanning" technology for computer security. The Federal Circuit made a mixed decision after hearing the appeals from both sides. In terms of infringement, the Federal Circuit affirmed Secure Computing's infringement on Finjan's system and storage medium patent claims but reversed the infringement on Finjan's method claim. In terms of damage award, the Federal Circuit not only affirmed the previous $9.18 million award by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, but also remanded for the district court to assess the extra damages between the post-judgement and pre-injunction period.

Bowman v. Monsanto Co., 569 U.S. 278 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court patent decision in which the Court unanimously affirmed the decision of the Federal Circuit that the patent exhaustion doctrine does not permit a farmer to plant and grow saved, patented seeds without the patent owner's permission. The case arose after Vernon Hugh Bowman, an Indiana farmer, bought transgenic soybean crop seeds from a local grain elevator for his second crop of the season. Monsanto originally sold the seed from which these soybeans were grown to farmers under a limited use license that prohibited the farmer-buyer from using the seeds for more than a single season or from saving any seed produced from the crop for replanting. The farmers sold their soybean crops to the local grain elevator, from which Bowman then bought them. After Bowman replanted the crop seeds for his second harvest, Monsanto filed a lawsuit claiming that he infringed on their patents by replanting soybeans without a license. In response, Bowman argued that Monsanto's claims were barred under the doctrine of patent exhaustion, because all future generations of soybeans were embodied in the first generation that was originally sold.

FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. 136 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the FTC could make an antitrust challenge under the rule of reason against a so-called pay-for-delay agreement, also referred to as a reverse payment patent settlement. Such an agreement is one in which a drug patentee pays another company, ordinarily a generic drug manufacturer, to stay out of the market, thus avoiding generic competition and a challenge to patent validity. The FTC sought to establish a rule that such agreements were presumptively illegal, but the Court ruled only that the FTC could bring a case under more general antitrust principles permitting a defendant to assert justifications for its actions under the rule of reason.

Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 571 U.S. 191 (2014), is a case of the Supreme Court of the United States that deals with civil procedure, and specifically with the question of the burden of proof required in pursuing declaratory judgments.

Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965), was a 1965 decision of the United States Supreme Court that held, for the first time, that enforcement of a fraudulently procured patent violated the antitrust laws and provided a basis for a claim of treble damages if it caused a substantial anticompetitive effect.

Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case related to trademark law under the Lanham Act. In the 9–0 decision on judgement, the Court ruled that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement lawsuit is not required to demonstrate that the defendant willfully infringed on their trademark to claim lost profit damages.

United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution as it related to patent judges on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In a complex decision, the Court ruled that these judges were considered "primary officers" under the Appointments Clause, normally subject to appointment through the US President and the US Senate, but to remedy the matter, the Court ruled that the constitutional issue is resolved by allowing the PTAB decisions to be subject to review by the appropriately-appointed Director of the Patent Office.

TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with standing under Article III of the Constitution related to class-action suits against private defendants. In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that only those that can show concrete harm have standing to seek damages against private defendants.

Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1920 (2015), was a 2015 decision by the United States Supreme Court pertaining to the standard for induced patent infringement. Writing for a 6-2 majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy held that (1) a claim of induced infringement requires a showing that the defendant knew that it is engaging in infringing conduct and (2) a defendant's belief that a patent is invalid is not a defense to a claim of induced infringement. Justice Antonin Scalia dissented from the second point, arguing that, in his view, a good faith belief in a patent's invalidity should constitute a defense to a charge of induced infringement.

References

  1. ↑ Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.,No. 14–1513 , 579 U.S. ___(2016).
  2. 1 2 SCOTUSblog coverage
  3. 1 2 Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 769F.3d1371 (Fed. Cir.2014).
  4. 1 2 Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 136S. Ct.1923 (2016).
  5. ↑ Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 831F.3d1369 (Fed. Cir.2016).
  6. ↑ Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 281F. Supp.3d1087 (D. Nev.2017).
  7. ↑ "Navigating Willfulness In Patent Cases 3 Years After Halo - Law360". www.law360.com. Retrieved October 17, 2021.
  8. ↑ "Piercing Halo's Haze at Year Five: Smoke Clearing on Enhanced Damages". IPWatchdog.com. June 13, 2021. Retrieved October 17, 2021.
  9. ↑ "Opinion analysis: Where have I read this before? Justices tread familiar path limiting Federal Circuit control over remedies in patent cases". SCOTUSblog. June 16, 2016. Retrieved October 17, 2021.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.