Halo – How is the judicial discretion approach to enhanced damages being applied

Logo
Presented by

Michael McGraw – partner at Fitzpatrick; Zachary Garrett – associate at Fitzpatrick; Michael Loney – Americas editor at MIP

About this talk

On June 13, 2016, the United States Supreme Court decided that the two-part Seagate test being used to decide whether or not an infringer is subject to enhanced damages was inconsistent with the statutory authority (35 U.S.C. §284) relied on for those claims. How has that decision impacted the District and Federal Circuit Court rulings? Join Fitzpatrick and Managing IP for a complimentary webinar as we discuss Halo and the impact it has had on claims made under §284 in the district courts since June. The webinar will be moderated by Michael Loney, Americas editor at Managing IP, and will feature Michael McGraw and Zachary Garrett, attorneys from Fitzpatrick, as they discuss the following topics: - The end of Seagate and the Federal Circuit’s two-part test - Halo and the current standard for enhanced damages - Impact on the District Court cases following Halo - Impact on the Federal Circuit cases following Halo

Related topics:

More from this channel

Upcoming talks (0)
On-demand talks (84)
Subscribers (11076)
‘What keeps in-house counsel awake at night?’ is one way to summarise our editorial focus. We aim to track the strategies of in-house IP counsel within companies, big and small, by speaking directly to them about the day-to-day issues they face. Law firms need practical information that they can apply when advising their clients, and companies find value in benchmarking their strategies with those of their peers. This is why we have adopted this approach in our subscription-based service. Our content is not reactionary or news-focused, but informed and actionable. In this pursuit of in-house intelligence, we also publish several surveys each year that include exclusive data focusing on specific industry issues. These polls allow us to provide an accurate snapshot of how in-house counsel perceive and act on a given issue. Our other core objective is interviewing senior judges, whose insight is valuable for many IP stakeholders. We find that the judiciary are vital for giving counsel, private and in-house, highly useful information for when they are locked in litigation. We continue to speak regularly with IP offices too. Regardless of its specific intent, our coverage is global and encompasses (but is not limited to) the following areas: Copyright; Data; Designs; Patents; Trademarks; and Trade secrets