Intellectual Property Law
New Matter SUMMER 2017, Volume 41, Number 3
Content
- 2016 New Matter Author Submission Guidelines
- Case Comments
- Contents
- Copyright Commentary
- Federal Circuit Report
- Intellectual Property Section Executive Committee 2015-2016
- Intellectual Property Section Interest Group Representatives 2015-2016
- International Ip Developments
- Letter from the Chair
- Letter from the Editor-in-Chief
- Lynne Beresford 1942-2016
- MCLE Self-Study Article
- Ninth Circuit Report
- Online Cle For Participatory Credit
- The Licensing Corner
- The Meaning Behind Moral Rights Waiver Language in Contracts in the United States
- The State Bar of California Intellectual Property Alumni
- Ttab Decisions and Developments
- Enhanced Patent Damages: the "Halo Effect"
Enhanced Patent Damages: The "Halo Effect"
Robert W. Payne
Payne IP Law
Few areas in intellectual property law have suffered more ninety-degree turns than the subject of enhanced patent damages. On June 13, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court set the newest course in a dramatic fashion – in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.1 and its companion case, Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc.2 Federal Circuit bright-line authority was rejected.
If found liable in a patent infringement case, an infringer may be enjoined from activity, and may also be liable for damages. Damages may be actual damages proved by the plaintiff, but in no case may they be less than a reasonable royalty.3 Under certain circumstances, the Court may enhance damages up to a trebling of the underlying damage amount.4 This is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 284, which provides: