Several district courts have found it impermissible to vacate a jury verdict of willful infringement, because a finding of subjective willfulness is a question of fact. While district courts still maintain discretion as to the ultimate damages award, juries are now more likely to hear evidence of willful infringement at trial.Įmphasis on the Factual Determinations Made by a Jury In the aftermath of Halo, several courts have considered its effect on willful infringement determinations. The Supreme Court therefore left it to a court's discretion, 'guided by the sound level principles developed over nearly two centuries' of patent law, to determine whether a case is one of the 'egregious cases' that merit a finding of willful infringement.

Additionally, the Court lowered the burden of proof from a clear and convincing standard to a preponderance of the evidence standard, because § 284 'imposes no specific evidentiary burden, much less such a high one.' Id. Leaving the second prong intact, the Court held that the 'subjective willfulness of a patent infringer, intentional or knowing, may warrant enhanced damages.' Id. Thus, a showing of objective recklessness is no longer required for a willfulness determination. at 2 (2016), finding the first prong of objective recklessness is 'unduly rigid' and that it 'impermissibly encumbers' a district court's discretion, because it 'excludes from discretionary punishment many of the most culpable offenders.' Id. But, the Supreme Court recently rejected this test in Halo Elecs., Inc. § 284 provides that upon a finding of willful infringement, courts 'may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.' To determine willful infringement, courts had long applied the Federal Circuit's two-prong Seagate test, which required a finding of objective recklessness, as well as a subjective finding of willfulness.

Transdata v. centerpoint energy