2 Ways Courts Approach Willful Infringement After Halo

Law360, New York (January 18, 2017, 12:35 PM EST) -- Natalie Hanlon Leh

Michael Silhasek This article analyzes how district courts have addressed the sufficiency of pleading enhanced damages after Halo at the motion to dismiss stage. (The first article in this two-part series considered district court decisions on enhanced damages issued within the first six months after Halo.)

In Halo Electronics Inc. v. Pulse Electronics Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the “unduly rigid” framework first articulated in Seagate nearly a decade ago for awarding enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 in the case of willful patent infringement.[1] In doing so, the court noted that awards of enhanced damages...

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