Law360, New York (January 17, 2017, 2:12 PM EST) -- Donald R. Steinberg
Heather M. Petruzzi
Margareta K. Sorenson
This article considers district court decisions on enhanced damages issued within the first six months after Halo, particularly focusing on the factors that influence whether enhanced damages are ultimately awarded. (The next article in this two-part series analyzes how district courts have addressed the sufficiency of pleading enhanced damages after Halo at the motion-to-dismiss stage.)
The U.S. Supreme Court in Halo rejected Seagate’s requirement for “objective recklessness” as a prerequisite for willful infringement and enhanced damages under § 284, explaining that this requirement allowed the most culpable offenders to avoid punishment. Rather, the court...
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!