California Appellate Tracker

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

June 21, 2016

The Supreme Court rejects the Federal Circuit’s Seagate Technology test for when to award treble damages in patent infringement suits under 35 USC 284, as too rigid and incompatible with the statute, adopting instead a “all circumstances considered” standard reviewed on appeal only for abuse of discretion.

The Federal Circuit’s Seagate test for the award of treble damages in patent cases under 35 USC 284 is too rigid and is rejected. The Seagate test wrongly (1) required a showing of objective recklessness in every case, even when the infringer subjectively intended to infringe, (2) required proof by clear and convincing evidence rather than merely a preponderance of the evidence, and (3) applied a three-part standard of review on appeal instead of simply abuse of discretion. No single test is adopted in place of Seagate‘s rejected test, but treble damages are reserved for cases of egregious infringement. The preponderance of the evidence test governs proof of all elements of a patent infringement case, including treble damages. On appeal, an award of treble damages is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

United States Supreme Court (Roberts, C.J.; Breyer, Kennedy, & Alito, JJ., concurring); June 13, 2016; 2016 WL 3221515

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

I Agree

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

California Appellate Tracker

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

Categories

San Francisco

Severson & Werson

Orange County

Severson & Werson