IP at the Supreme Court Series: Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc.
February 23, 2016
4:30pm | Room NT01
Reception to Follow
In PIJIP’s ongoing Supreme Court Series, a panel of counsel for amici and parties will discuss the case on the afternoon following oral argument before the Court. The live webcast will be available once the event begins.
Panel:
- Jonas Anderson, American University Washington College of Law
- Donald Dunner, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Counsel for Respondent, Zimmer, Inc.
- Christopher Seaman, Washington and Lee University School of Law, Counsel for Amici, Intellectual Property Professors, in Support of Neither Party
- James C. Otteson, Arnold and Porter, Counsel for Amici, Innovention Toys, in Support of Petitioners
- Michael Feldman, Durie Tangri, Counsel for Amici, Internet Companies, in Support of Respondents (invited)
- Michael Carroll, American University Washington College of Law (Moderator)
Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.
Issue:
(1) Whether the Federal Circuit erred by applying a rigid, two-part test for enhancing patent infringement damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, that is the same as the rigid, two-part test this Court rejected last term in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. for imposing attorney fees under the similarly-worded 35 U.S.C. § 285.
UPDATE:
Decision: June 13, 2016
Argument: Transcript; Audio
All briefs available on SCOTUSblog: Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.
Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc.
Issue:
(1) Whether the Federal Circuit improperly abrogated the plain meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 284 by forbidding any award of enhanced damages unless there is a finding of willfulness under a rigid, two-part test, when this Court recently rejected an analogous framework imposed on 35 U.S.C. § 285, the statute providing for attorneys’ fee awards in exceptional cases.
UPDATE:
Decision: June 13, 2016 (Consolidated with: Halo Electronics Inc. v. Pulse Electronics Inc.)
