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.
- 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.
(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.
All briefs available on SCOTUSblog: Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.
Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc.
(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.
Decision: June 13, 2016 (Consolidated with: Halo Electronics Inc. v. Pulse Electronics Inc.)