Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.
Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the two-part Seagate test, used to determine when a district court may increase damages for patent infringement, is not consistent with Section 284 of the Patent Act.[1][2]
Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Argued February 23, 2016 Decided June 13, 2016 | |
Full case name | Halo Electronics, Inc., Petitioner v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., et al.; Stryker Corporation, et al., Petitioners v. Zimmer, Inc., et al. |
Docket nos. | 14-1513 14-1520 |
Citations | 579 U.S. ___ (more) 136 S. Ct. 1923; 195 L. Ed. 2d 278; 2016 U.S. LEXIS 3776; 84 U.S.L.W. 4386; 118 U.S.P.Q.2d 1761 |
Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
Case history | |
Prior |
|
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Roberts, joined by unanimous |
Concurrence | Breyer, joined by Kennedy, Alito |
Opinion of the Court
Chief Justice John Roberts authored a unanimous opinion.[1]
gollark: I don't really write C except ironically.
gollark: > now, do we make an exception specially for palaiologos to write C<@319753218592866315> we do not.
gollark: Oneliners everywhere, abuse of higher order functions and closure, apiothaumatic entities, zero classes, and odd state handling.
gollark: My default one is very obvious and I'm aware of that.
gollark: I can easily fake someone else's style though.
References
- Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., No. 14–1513, 579 U.S. ___ (2016).
- SCOTUSblog coverage
External links
- Text of Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. ___ (2016) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion)
- SCOTUSblog coverage
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.