Whether enhanced patent damages can be awarded without regard to whether there was an objectively high risk of infringement based on a finding of negligence, as opposed to a finding of intentional or knowing infringement

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 136 8. Ct. 1923 (2016), this Court held that the two-part test for enhanced patent damages established in In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en bane)—which required proof of both (1) an objectively high likelihood that the accused infringer’s actions constituted patent infringement, and (2) that the risk was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer—was “unduly rigid” because it did not allow plaintiffs to obtain enhanced damages based on “[t]he subjective willfulness of a patent infringer, intentional or knowing, ... without regard to whether his infringement was objectively reckless.” On remand, the Federal Circuit affirmed the finding of willfulness based solely on the subjective prong of the Seagate test, equating the “knew or should have known” prong of the two-part Seagate test with the “intentional or knowing” misconduct described by this Court in Halo. The district court subsequently imposed treble damages. The questions presented are: 1. Whether enhanced patent damages can be awarded without regard to whether there was an objectively high risk of infringement based on a finding of negligence, as opposed to a finding of intentional or knowing infringement. 2. Whether the Federal Circuit erred in affirming the enhanced damages award here in a summary order without providing any guidance to lower courts regarding the proper application of Halo. @