Supreme Court Makes it Easier for Medical Device Companies to Recover Enhanced Damages for Patent Infringement

| Printer friendly version

The Patent Act provides that, in a case of infringement, courts “may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.”  Previously, in order to recover enhanced damages under the Patent Act, a patent owner had to show two things: (1) the infringer acted with objective recklessness and (2) the risk of infringement was either known or should have been known to the accused infringer.  Both of these elements had to be shown by the relatively high standard of “clear and convincing” evidence.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Halo Electronics, Inc v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. drastically changed the standard for enhanced damages and made it easier for patent owners to obtain an enhanced damages award.  The Court eliminated the objective recklessness prong and lowered the standard of proof from “clear and convincing evidence” to “preponderance of the evidence.”  The Court also adopted an abuse of discretion standard for appellate courts reviewing a district court’s decision to grant enhanced damages.

Previously, patent owners struggled to obtain enhanced damages even when they could establish that the infringer acted with bad faith.  Infringers were able to avoid enhanced damages by making a reasonable defense at trial.  Thus, the ability of a patent owner to obtain enhanced damages sometimes depended more on the ingenuity of the defendant’s attorney than the defendant’s culpability at the time of the challenged conduct.  By eliminating the objective recklessness prong, the Supreme Court refocused the analysis on the defendant’s knowledge at the time of the infringing conduct.

The Court’s new contemporaneous focus will likely influence the prelitigation conduct of patent owners and accused infringers.  Demand letters informing accused infringers of their infringement and relevant patents will likely become more common place.  Opinion letters will also likely take on an increased significance for accused infringers.  Not all instances will warrant a full-blown infringement and validity analysis but, under the new standard, accusations of patent infringement should be given prompt, thorough, and carefully documented consideration.

Christie Matthaei
Christie Matthaei is an associate in our Seattle office. Ms. Matthaei represents various clients in all aspects of intellectual property disputes, with a focus on patent litigation. Ms. Matthaei also counsels clients on pre-litigation matters, including analyzing patent infringement and validity. Ms. Matthaei earned her J.D. from the George Washington University Law School, where she was a member of the American Intellectual Property Law Association Journal. During her time in law school, Ms. Matthaei interned for the White House, working in the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Prior to law school, Ms. Matthaei worked at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory as a chemical engineer on projects related to alternative energy and green chemicals. Ms. Matthaei obtained a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Washington. Ms. Matthaei was a summer associate in 2010 and joined the firm as an associate in 2011.
Click here to read full bio
View all posts published by Christie Matthaei »

Leave a Reply

By using this blog, you agree and understand that no information is being provided in the context of any attorney-client relationship. You further agree and understand that nothing herein is intended to be legal advice. This blog is solely informational in nature, and is not intended as, and should not be used as, a substitute for competent legal advice from a retained and licensed attorney in your state. Knobbe Martens LLP makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the information in this blog. Knobbe Martens LLP will not be liable for any injury or damages relating to your use of, or access to, any such information. Knobbe Martens LLP undertakes no obligation to correct or update information on this blog, which may be incorrect or become incorrect or out of date over time. Knobbe Martens LLP reserves the right to alter or delete content or information on the blog at any time. This blog contains links and references to other websites and publications that you may find of interest. Knobbe Martens LLP does not control, promote, endorse or otherwise have any affiliation with any other websites or publications unless those websites or publications expressly state such an affiliation. Knobbe Martens LLP further has no responsibility for, and makes no representations regarding, the content, accuracy or any other aspect of the information in such websites or publications.