What A Reversal In Stryker And Halo Would Mean

Law360, New York (February 26, 2016, 10:27 AM EST) -- Matthew Berkowitz

Patrick Colsher Briefing and oral argument are now complete in the consolidated U.S. Supreme Court cases of Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer Inc. and Halo Electronics Inc. v. Pulse Electronics Inc., which each address questions relating to enhancement of patent damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.[1]

This article summarizes the briefing and oral argument positions, and analyzes the potential effects on patent litigation and opinion practice should the Supreme Court reverse and grant district courts greater discretion to enhance damages under Section 284.

35 U.S.C. § 284 recites, in relevant part, that after finding for the claimant, “the court may...

Stay ahead of the curve

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.


  • Access to case data within articles (numbers, filings, courts, nature of suit, and more.)
  • Access to attached documents such as briefs, petitions, complaints, decisions, motions, etc.
  • Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and so much more!

TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS