WARF asks court to reconsider $234m Apple patent damages award

The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) has asked a US court to reconsider a $234 million ruling in light of the US Supreme Court’s decision to hear two cases on wilful infringement.

Last month, the US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin ordered Apple to pay $234 million in damages after it was found to have infringed a patent covering the process of improving chip efficiency in its iPhone 5 and 6 models and various iPad devices.

WARF had originally been asking for almost $400 million in damages, but Apple’s infringement was deemed not to be wilful.

But since the damages award was handed down, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases concerning the two-part test applied by US courts to determine whether the infringement of a patent has been wilful.

Under the two-part system, a US court firstly assesses whether a patentee shows by “clear and convincing” evidence that an infringer’s actions are objectively unreasonable.

Once answered in the affirmative, the court conducts a de novo review of the infringer’s defence. Only afterwards does the court triple the damages award once it has determined the defendant’s infringement to be wilful.

Writs filed at the Supreme Court by the plaintiffs in both the Halo v Pulse and Stryker v Zimmer cases argue that the standard for determining whether an infringement of a patent is wilful is too “rigid” and ask the court to reject the application of the two-part test.

In WARF’s latest filing at the Wisconsin court, filed on November 23, it argued that the court should reconsider the damages award following the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the Halo and Stryker cases.

“By granting certiorari on the issue, the Supreme Court has indicated that prior law under which the court granted judgment in favour of Apple on wilful infringement and enhanced damages may not be correct.

“Accordingly, WARF respectfully requests that the court reconsiders its earlier ruling on the subject, strike the portion of the judgment in which the court granted judgment in favour of Apple on wilfulness and if necessary hold further proceedings on the issue of wilfulness and enhanced damages,” WARF added.