United States: Lessons From Post-Halo Enhanced Damages Decisions

The U.S. Supreme Court's June 2016 decision in Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics confirmed district courts' discretion in enhancing damages for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284. The court rejected the Federal Circuit's two-part test from In re Seagate Technology LLC, which had previously allowed some arguments raised at trial, but not previously considered by the accused infringer, to negate findings of willful infringement. Noting that "culpability is generally measured against the knowledge of the actor at the time of the alleged conduct," the Supreme Court encouraged district courts to assess enhancement of damages based on the "particular circumstances of each case."1

In the 10 months since the Halo decision, multiple district courts have considered whether to enhance damages in patent cases. Most courts have applied the nine factors from Read Corp. v. Portec Inc. to assess the reasonableness of the accused infringers conduct.2 Despite applying the same factors, different courts have produced a spectrum of outcomes, ranging from dismissal on the pleadings, to small enhancement of damages, the maximum statutory award of treble damages. Exploring these early decisions reveals several considerations for parties assessing a competitor's patent.

Knowledge of a Patent

Knowledge of a patent does not always lead to a finding of willfulness. Justice Stephen Breyer's concurring opinion in Halo stated that "the Court's references to 'willful misconduct' do not mean that a court may award enhanced damages simply because the evidence shows that the infringer knew about the patent and nothing more."3 In the past year, several courts have relied on this statement when dismissing claims to willful infringement.4 For example, the District of Delaware dismissed a willful infringement claim because "Plaintiff d[id] little more than provide a formulaic recitation of the pre-Halo elements of a willful infringement claim."5

Other courts have reached different conclusions based on the facts before them. For example, the Southern District of New York denied a motion to dismiss a claim of willful infringement because the complaint alleged "counsel for [the plaintiff] wrote a series of three letters to [the defendant], notifying [the defendant] of [the plaintiff's] intellectual property and alleging infringement of it" and "[the defendant] responded to the first two of these letters but not the third."6

As these examples illustrate, courts have differed in their consideration of motions to dismiss claims of willfulness based on the allegations before them. The question of whether a party that learns of a patent should engage in further analysis depends on the circumstances facing that party, as well as the party's assessment of the risk the patent may pose to its business.

Good Faith Analysis of the Patent

Post-Halo decisions confirm that a timely, competent analysis of a patent can help to demonstrate good faith and to avoid enhanced damages. As explained by the District of Delaware in Greatbatch Ltd. v. AVX Corp., a presuit non-infringement opinion "could be viewed as evidence that[an accused infringer] did not believe it was infringing a valid patent."7 And "ongoing consultation with a patent lawyer," another court explained, "remains a consideration and is 'highly probative evidence of good faith.'"8 In this Delaware case, the accused infringer had consulted the attorney during the design process and further obtained a non-infringement opinion on the final design.9

For example, in the Western District of North Carolina, a defendant had an engineer determine that the accused product did not infringe for lacking two claimed features.10 In the litigation that followed, the court reached the same conclusion as the engineer, but was ultimately overruled on appeal. On remand and considering enhanced damages, the court concluded that enhanced damages were not warranted, in part, because the jury had already awarded nearly three times the patentee's proposed reasonable royalty rate in regular damages alone. The patentee had already been "amply compensated," the court concluded.11

The timing of an invalidity or non-infringement analysis may impact its usefulness as a defense against enhanced damages.12 In Omega Patents v. Calamp Corp., for example, the Middle District of Florida awarded enhanced damages because "there [was] no indication in the record that [the defendant's expert] provided [the defendant] his opinion on invalidity before the accused products went into production."13 "[T]here[was] no record evidence that [the defendant] had knowledge of the invalidity defense derived from the combination of prior art and SAE standards at the time of the challenged conduct."14

The competence and qualifications of the person reviewing the patent have also factored into courts' consideration of enhanced damages. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania doubled damages where the defendant "admit[ted] not having someone with the specific skill in the art of reading patent claims review[] [the] patent."15 Rather than seeking the counsel of an outside patent lawyer, the defendant's belief of non-infringement was "based entirely on the opinion of people without expertise in reading patent claims," which the court found "is not a good faith belief in non-infringement."16 The fact that the defendant was "on notice of possible infringement for almost the entire duration of [an allegedly infringing] project," which "took 18-24 months," also influenced the court.

The Southern District of Florida awarded maximum enhanced damages against a defendant even though it had obtained an invalidity opinion from an in-house patent agent. The agent "acknowledg[ed] that, by law, he is not permitted to give an opinion on patent infringement or validity."17 Moreover, the opinion was inadequate, "consist[ing] of one conclusory sentence on a page of handwritten notes."18 The defendant also "knew about the subject patents before they issued," and the patent agent "made a note in his file to reexamine the patent after its issuance."19

Evidence of Copying or Bad Faith

Post-Halo courts have also awarded enhanced damages in cases where the evidence showed defendant acted in bad faith or willfully copied a patented feature. Focusing on copying, the Eastern District of Texas awarded maximum damages based on an employee's testimony that he sought information on how [the plaintiff] made its camera," "requested source code," and requested "the circuitry for the [camera] interface."20 Another witness testified that the defendant was "tracking [the asserted] patent portfolio," but "did not perform [a timely] analysis of Plaintiff's patents ... and did not monitor Plaintiff's previous litigation involving the patents-in-suit."21

The Northern District of New York doubled damages to $47.7 million in a case where the defendant, after having previously been found to infringe, "deliberately copied" the plaintiff's patents, concealed the infringement with internal changes to the product that were "invisible" from the outside, and continued its infringement for ten years and even after the plaintiff had filed suit. The court did not punish the defendant with maximum enhanced damages, however, because, while the defendant had engaged in egregious behavior, the court found it was "not a polar case" that was at "the most egregious end of the spectrum," and doubling the award served as adequate punitive sanction.22

In RBOC Representatives v. Minemyer, the Northern District of Illinois awarded the plaintiff maximum enhanced damages on "clear and convincing evidence that the ... defendants violated a significant portion of [an] injunction" from an earlier litigation.23 The defendants also acted egregiously in the litigation, "t[elling] inconsistent and conflicting stories about virtually everything that mattered in the case" and "stunning[ly] and inexplicabl[y] [remaining] silen[t] on the matter of supposed changes to [the allegedly infringing device]."24

While dissimilar facts may arise in many cases, these decisions illustrate that future courts will consider all actions taken by the accused infringer. Further, after Halo, an objectionably reasonable trial defense may not be enough to ward off enhanced damages.


The Supreme Court's guidance in Halo shifts the focus of the defendant's mindset at the time of the alleged infringement. As a result, parties may benefit from forming a good-faith belief of non-infringement or invalidity soon after becoming aware of a patent, and to maintain that belief through any changes in design. Seeking the opinion of a qualified patent attorney may help demonstrate good faith, particularly if done in a timely manner. Further, evidence of copying or bad faith will likely factor into the court's decision whether to enhance damages.


1 Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. 136 S.Ct. 1923, 1933 (2016).

2 970 F.2d 816, 827 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (factors include the defendant's copying, good-faith belief in non-infringement or invalidity, behavior in the litigation, and size and financial condition, as well as the closeness of the case and the defendant's behavior in the litigation).

3 Halo, 136 S.Ct. at 1933.

4 Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Ubisoft Entm't SA, 2016 WL 6594076 (D. Del. Nov. 4, 2016); Varian Med. Sys., Inc. v. Elekta AB, No., 2016 WL 3748772 (D. Del. July 12, 2016).

5 Varian, 2016 WL 3748772, at *8.

6 Bobcar Media, LLC v. Aardvark Event Logistics, Inc., 2017 WL 74729, *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2017).

7 Greatbatch Ltd. v. AVX Corp., 2016 WL 7217625, *4 (D. Del. Dec. 13, 2016)

8 Loggerhead Tools, LLC v. Sears Holding Corp., No. 12-CV-9033, 2016 WL 6778881, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2016)

9 Idsee also Polara Eng'g, Inc. v. Campbell Co., No. SA CV 13-00007-DFM, 2017 WL 754609, *25-*27 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2017) (awarding 250% damages where the defendant allegedly "ignored warnings about the . . . Patent and implemented a two-wire design without a competent opinion that its design would not infringe or that the . . . Patent was invalid.").

10 Sociedad Espanola De Electromedicina Y Calidad, S.A. v. Blue Ridge X-Ray Co., Inc., 2016 WL 7473422, *8, (W.D.N.C., Dec. 28, 2016).

11 Id.

12 Omega Patents, LLC v. Calamp Corp., 6-13-cv-01950 (FLMD April 5, 2017, Order).

13 Id.

14 Omega Patents, LLC v. Calamp Corp., 6-13-cv-01950 (FLMD April 5, 2017, Order).Id..

15 Id. at *22.

16 Id.

17 Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc., 2016 WL 4249951, *6 (S.D.Fla., July 27, 2016).

18 Id. at *4.

19 Id.

20 Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman), Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 2016 WL 4480542, *6, (E.D.Tex., Aug. 24, 2016).

21 Id.

22 PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc'ns RF, LLC, 193 F. Supp. 3d 133, 148 (N.D.N.Y. 2016).

23 No. 07 C 1763, 2017 WL 543045 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 10, 2017).

24 Id. at *2.

Originally printed in  Law360 on April 24, 2017. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm's clients.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
15 Nov 2017, Conference, California, United States

Finnegan is a Gold sponsor of the second annual Digital Media & IP Forum, hosted by World Congress.

15 Nov 2017, Conference, London, UK

Finnegan partner Leythem Wall will consider European claim drafting strategy and will lead the Chemical Workshop during a two-day course, hosted by Management Forum.

15 Nov 2017, Seminar, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Finnegan partner Anthony Tridico will lead Forum Institute for Management’s course comparing patent law in the United States and Europe.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.