Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v. Arctic Cat Inc.
Certiorari Denied
Petition for certiorari denied on October 1, 2018.
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..
Jun 6, 2018Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 9, 2018)Jun 8, 2018Amended Proof of Service filed.Jun 29, 2018Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 9, 2018 to August 8, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
Jun 29, 2018Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 8, 2018.
Jul 9, 2018Brief amicus curiae of High Tech Investors Alliance filed.Jul 9, 2018Brief amicus curiae of Intel Corporation filed.Aug 8, 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.
Oct 1, 2018Petition DENIED.
Recommended Citation: Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v. Arctic Cat Inc., SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/bombardier-recreational-products-inc-v-arctic-cat-inc/