US Supreme Court urged to dismiss wilful infringement arguments
Public Knowledge and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have urged the US Supreme Court to dismiss arguments seeking to extend rights for patent owners requesting enhanced damages.
The groups jointly filed an amicus brief in the Halo v Pulse and Stryker v Zimmer cases, which are due to be heard at the Supreme Court in the New Year.
Both cases concern the plaintiffs’ demand for rights to obtain triple damages in cases centring on wilful infringement of a patent to be extended.
The companies argue that the standards for a court to rule that an infringement is wilful are too “rigid” and that the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is applying its two-part test, despite it being rejected by the Supreme Court in Octane Fitness v ICON Health & Fitness.
While neither Public Knowledge nor the EFF are commenting on whether the federal circuit was correct in denying tripled damages to both Halo and Stryker, both fear the lowering of standard for a wilful verdict could lead to widespread abuse in the patent system, particularly against small-to-medium-sized enterprises.
“To remove key limitations on the availability of enhanced damages under section 284 of the US Patent Code, as petitioners seek, would only worsen those prospects of insurmountable costs and increase the abusive and unnecessary pressure placed on those companies,” the brief said.
The brief advocated not giving US district courts “wholesale discretion over awards of enhanced damages”, that a patent owner must demonstrate an infringer’s bad faith actions and that courts should consider the infringer’s good-faith belief in the invalidity of the patent.
For the amici, removal of these limitations would increase the issue of “forum shopping” in the US, an issue the EFF has campaigned against in recent months.
“Patentees enjoy nearly unconstrained control over the forum of infringement suits, and they clearly prefer one federal district, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
“The concentration of suits in one forum is concerning in itself, and even more concerning is the possibility that the district’s rules and practices skew towards patentees,” the companies added.
