Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v. Arctic Cat Inc.

Pending petition
Docket No.
Op. Below
Argument
TBD
Opinion
TBD
Vote
TBD
Author
TBD
Term
TBD

Issue: Whether a finding of willful infringement based on In re Seagate’s “should have been known” negligence standard violates the requirement that subjective willfulness must be “intentional or knowing,” as set forth by the Supreme Court in Halo Electronics Inc. v. Pulse Electronics Inc..

SCOTUSblog Coverage

DateProceedings and Orders
Jun 06 2018Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 9, 2018)
Jun 08 2018Amended Proof of Service filed.
Jun 29 2018Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 8, 2018.
Jun 29 2018Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 9, 2018 to August 8, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
Jul 09 2018Brief amicus curiae of Intel Corporation filed.
Jul 09 2018Brief amicus curiae of High Tech Investors Alliance filed.
Aug 08 2018Brief of respondent Arctic Cat Inc. in opposition filed.
Aug 21 2018Reply of petitioners Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., et al. filed.
Aug 22 2018DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY