Halo Electronics Inc. v. Pulse Electronics Inc.

Editor's Note :

Halo Electronics Inc. v. Pulse Electronics Inc.

Interim Stat Pack for October Term 2018 – Adam Feldman

Justices release financial disclosures – Amy Howe

Challengers ask justices to put off census decision – Amy Howe

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

June 2019

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Merits Docket OT18 (June 10, 2019)

Merits Cases by Sitting

Majority Opinions by Author

Voting Breakdown Argued Cases

Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

June 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of June 13, 2019

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

Interim Stat Pack for October Term 2018 – Adam Feldman

Justices release financial disclosures – Amy Howe

Challengers ask justices to put off census decision – Amy Howe
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
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 June 13 conference on Monday at 9:30 a.m.; John Elwood's "Relist Watch" compiles the petitions that were relisted for this conference.
There is a possibility of opinions on Monday at 10 a.m.
On Thursday, the justices meet for their June 20 conference.
Major Cases
- Department of Commerce v. New York
  (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker -- including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- 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.
- 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
- Quarles v. United States Michigan’s third-degree home-invasion statute substantially corresponds to or is narrower than generic burglary for purposes of qualifying for enhanced sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
- Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, when federal law addresses the relevant issue, state law is not adopted as surrogate federal law on the Outer Continental Shelf.
- Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service The federal government is not a “person” capable of petitioning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to institute patent review proceedings under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.
- Azar v. Allina Health Services Because the Department of Health and Human Services neglected its statutory notice-and-comment obligations when it revealed a new policy that dramatically – and retroactively – reduced Medicare payments to hospitals serving low-income patients, its policy must be vacated.
- Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis The charge-filing precondition to suit set out in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not a jurisdictional requirement.
- Mont v. United States Pretrial detention later credited as time served for a new conviction tolls a supervised-release term under 18 U.S.C. §3624(e), even if the court must make the tolling calculation after learning whether the time will be credited.
- Taggart v. Lorenzen A creditor may be held in civil contempt for violating a bankruptcy court’s discharge order if there is no fair ground of doubt as to whether the order barred the creditor’s conduct.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Jordan v. City of Darien, Georgia Whether the existence of probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim as a matter of law.
- Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (1) Whether Oregon violated the free speech and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment by compelling the Kleins to design and create a custom wedding cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding ritual in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs; (2) whether the Supreme Court should overrule Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith; and (3) whether the Supreme Court should reaffirm Smith’s hybrid-rights doctrine, applying strict scrutiny to free exercise claims that implicate other fundamental rights, and resolve the circuit split over the doctrine’s precedential status.
- McGee v. McFadden (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit erred when it found no constitutional error when the state failed to disclose Brady evidence, a letter from a jailhouse snitch, until the post-trial hearing for a motion for a new trial; (2) whether the state and federal courts’ decisions were contrary to Giglio v. United States, United States v. Bagley, Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois when the state failed to disclose material impeachment evidence, a letter from a jailhouse snitch who testified that petitioner confessed to him; and (3) whether the state and federal courts erred in finding that trial counsel rendered effective assistance of counsel when he failed to interview Michael Jones and call him as a witness.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 69

Cases decided 42

Summary reversals 5

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Merits Docket OT18 (June 10, 2019)
Merits Cases by Sitting
Majority Opinions by Author
Voting Breakdown Argued Cases
Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Thomas at the Supreme Court Historical Society

On June 3, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with David Rubenstein for the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual lecture at the Supreme Court.

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.

Cases argued	69
Cases decided	42
Summary reversals	5
Merits cases granted to date	73

3
Orders
Opinions

6
Conference

10
Orders
Opinions

13
Conference

17
Orders
Opinions

20
Conference