Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.
United States Supreme Court
579 U.S. 93, 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016)
- Written by Eric Cervone, LLM
Facts
Halo Electronics, Inc. (Halo) (plaintiff) and Pulse Electronics, Inc. (Pulse) (defendant) both supplied electronic components. Halo brought suit against Pulse, alleging that Pulse infringed upon several of Halo’s patents. The jury found that Pulse had infringed Halo’s patents and that there was a high probability it had done so willfully. The trial court, however, declined to award enhanced damages under § 284 of the Patent Act, after determining that Pulse had presented a defense that was not objectively baseless. Thus, the court concluded, Halo had failed to show objective recklessness under the standard established in In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F. 3d 1360 (2007). The Federal Circuit affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and consolidated this case with a similar case, Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer Inc., 782 F.3d 649 (2014).
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Roberts, C.J.)
Concurrence (Breyer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
