Halo Electronics Inc. v. Pulse Electronics Inc.

Editor's Note :

Halo Electronics Inc. v. Pulse Electronics Inc.

Court will review census citizenship dispute this term – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices to examine rejection of contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Argument preview: Justices to consider ability of government to challenge patents in administrative process – Ronald Mann

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Feb. 2019

Featured Posts

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

This Week at the Court

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Statistical Snapshot

Live Blog Archives

Twitter Feed

Calendar: February 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of February 15, 2019

Conference

Holiday

Orders

RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)

Opinions

Conference

Orders

MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)

MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Consolidated with:

Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer Inc.

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
14-1513	Fed. Cir.	Feb 23, 2016 Tr.Aud.	Jun 13, 2016	8-0	Roberts	OT 2015

Holding: Section 284 of the Patent Act provides that, in a case of infringement, courts “may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.” Under the Federal Circuit's two-part Seagate test, damages may be increased under Section 284 only if the patent owner can show, by clear and convincing evidence, both that “the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent” and that the risk of infringement “was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer.” The Seagate test is “unduly rigid” and not consistent with the text of Section 284.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 8-0, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 13, 2016. Justice Breyer filed a concurring opinion, in which Justices Kennedy and Alito joined.

Opinion analysis: Where have I read this before? Justices tread familiar path limiting Federal Circuit control over remedies in patent cases (Ronald Mann)
Argument analysis: Justices unsettled on standard for enhanced damages in patent cases (Ronald Mann)
Argument preview: Justices to consider standard for enhanced damages in patent cases (Ronald Mann)
Court takes on new energy pricing dispute (Lyle Denniston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Jun 22 2015	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 24, 2015)
Jul 16 2015	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including August 24, 2015.
Jul 24 2015	Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Nokia Technologies OY and Nokia USA, INC.
Jul 24 2015	Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Independent Inventor Groups.
Aug 24 2015	Brief of respondents Pulse Electronics, Inc., et al. in opposition filed.
Sep 3 2015	Reply of petitioner Halo Electronics, Inc. filed.
Sep 4 2015	Letter received from counsel respondent, amending Rule 29.6. corporate disclosure statement. (Distributed) VIDED
Sep 9 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 28, 2015.
Oct 5 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 9, 2015.
Oct 13 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 16, 2015.
Oct 19 2015	Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Nokia Technologies OY and Nokia USA, INC GRANTED.
Oct 19 2015	Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Independent Inventor Groups GRANTED.
Oct 19 2015	Petition GRANTED granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 14-1520 is granted. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.
Oct 21 2015	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.
Nov 10 2015	Consent to the filing of amicus cuirae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents.
Nov 19 2015	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' briefs on the merits is extended to and including December 9, 2015. VIDED
Nov 19 2015	The time to file respondents' briefs on the merits is extended to and including January 13, 2016. VIDED
Dec 9 2015	Joint appendix filed (2 Volumes). (Statement of costs filed)
Dec 9 2015	Brief of petitioner Halo Electronics, Inc. filed.
Dec 14 2015	Brief amici curiae of Mentor Graphics Corp., et al. in support of neither party filed. VIDED.
Dec 15 2015	Brief amici curiae of Public Knowledge, The Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Engine Advocacy in support of neither party filed. VIDED.
Dec 16 2015	Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed. VIDED.
Dec 16 2015	Brief amici curiae of Small Inventors filed. VIDED.
Dec 16 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Askeladden LLC in support of neither party filed. VIDED.
Dec 16 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Intellectual Property Professors in support of neither party filed. VIDED.
Dec 16 2015	Brief amici curiae of Nokia Technologies Oy and Nokia USA Inc. filed. VIDED.
Dec 16 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Licensing Executives Society (U.S.A. and Canada), Inc. in support of neither party filed. VIDED.
Dec 16 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Innovention Toys, LLC filed. VIDED.
Dec 16 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Intellectual Property Owners Association in support of neither party filed. VIDED.
Dec 16 2015	Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association in support of neither party filed. VIDED.
Dec 16 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Ericsson Inc. in support of neither party filed. VIDED.
Dec 16 2015	Brief amicus curiae of MyKey Technology, Inc. in support of neither party filed.
Dec 16 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Professor Mossoff in support of neither party filed. VIDED.
Dec 23 2015	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, February 23, 2016
Jan 4 2016	Record requested from the U.S.C.A. Federal Circuit.
Jan 12 2016	Record received from U.S.C.A. Federal Circuit is electronic and located on PACER with the exception of an Appendix, also electronic.
Jan 13 2016	Brief of respondents Pulse Electronics, Inc., et al. filed.
Jan 15 2016	CIRCULATED.
Jan 19 2016	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed. VIDED.
Jan 20 2016	Joint motion for divided argument filed by respondents. VIDED.
Jan 20 2016	Brief amicus curiae of BSA I The Software Alliance filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 20 2016	Brief amici curiae of Intel Corp., et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 20 2016	Brief amicus curiae of Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 20 2016	Brief amicus curiae of Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 20 2016	Brief amici curiae of Dell, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 20 2016	Brief amici curiae of Yahoo! Inc. and Arthrex, Inc. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 20 2016	Brief amici curiae of Certain Members of Congress filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 20 2016	Brief amicus curiae of EMC Corporation filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 20 2016	Brief amici curiae of Google Inc., et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 20 2016	Brief amici curiae of Internet Companies filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 25 2016	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED. VIDED
Jan 25 2016	Joint motion for divided argument filed by respondents DENIED. VIDED
Feb 12 2016	Reply of petitioner Halo Electronics, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 23 2016	Argued. For petitioners: Jeffrey B. Wall, Washington, D. C.; and Roman Martinez, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Carter G. Phillips, Washington, D. C. VIDED
Jun 13 2016	Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Breyer, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Kennedy and Alito, JJ., joined. VIDED
Jul 15 2016	JUDGMENT ISSUED
Jul 25 2016	AMENDED JUDGMENT ISSUED

Featured Posts

Court will review census citizenship dispute this term – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices to examine rejection of contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Argument preview: Justices to consider ability of government to challenge patents in administrative process – Ronald Mann
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court will release orders from the February 15 conference on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. There is a possibility of opinions on Wednesday at 10 a.m.
On Tuesday, the justices hear oral argument in Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service.
On Wednesday, the justices hear oral argument in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC.
On Friday, the justices will meet for their February 22 conference.
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
  Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. The sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential may place the invention “on sale” for purposes of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which bars a person from receiving a patent on an invention that was “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention,” 35 U. S. C. §102(a)(1).
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Baxter v. United States (1) Whether a conviction for robbery under Florida law qualifies as a “violent felony” within the Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause simply because it requires overcoming victim resistance, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has held, or whether such a conviction fails to qualify as an ACCA “violent felony” because Florida caselaw confirms that overcoming victim resistance does not invariably requires the use of “violent force” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has held; and (2) whether a conviction for any state robbery offense that includes “as an element” the common law requirement of overcoming “victim resistance” is categorically a “violent felony” within the ACCA’s elements clause if the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 43

Cases decided 10

Summary reversals 2

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Chief Justice Roberts at Belmont University

On February 6, Chief Justice John Roberts spoke at Belmont University College of Law with Alberto Gonzales, dean of the law school and former U.S. attorney general.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

15
Conference

19
Orders
RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

20
MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

26
UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)
MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

27
THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Cases argued	43
Cases decided	10
Summary reversals	2
Merits cases granted to date	73