The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear:
Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer Inc.
Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.
Both cases address the legal standard for willful patent infringement.
Contents
Why Willfulness Matters
Willful infringement occurs when:
An infringer acts deliberately with knowledge of the patent.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 284:
Courts may award treble (triple) damages.
Federal Circuit’s test (from In re Seagate):
Objective prong – “Objectively high likelihood” of infringement.
Subjective prong – Infringer was aware of the risk.
Supreme Court review could:
Relax this standard.
Increase risk of enhanced damages for accused infringers.
Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer Inc.
Technology: Portable pulsed lavage devices (used in orthopedic surgery).
District Court (W.D. Mich.):
Jury found willful infringement.
Awarded $70 million.
Court trebled damages to $210 million.
Federal Circuit (2014):
Reversed willfulness finding.
Held Zimmer’s defenses were not objectively unreasonable.
Stryker argued:
The Seagate test is too rigid.
Cited Supreme Court’s decision in Octane Fitness (which relaxed fee-shifting standards).
Supreme Court granted review.
Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.
Technology: Surface mount electronic packages for circuit boards.
District Court (D. Nev.):
Jury awarded $1.5 million to Halo.
Court found no willful infringement.
Federal Circuit:
Affirmed.
Held Pulse’s obviousness defense was not objectively unreasonable.
Halo petitioned Supreme Court:
Argued Seagate test is overly rigid.
Supreme Court:
Granted certiorari.
Consolidated with Stryker case.
Key Issue Before the Court
Whether the Federal Circuit’s two-part Seagate test:
Is too strict.
Should be relaxed, similar to the standard modified in Octane Fitness.
Potential Impact:
Greater exposure to treble damages.
Significant consequences for accused infringers.
The legal standard for willfulness is under active reconsideration.
