No. 18-395

Corning Optical Communications RF LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc.

Lower Court: Federal Circuit
Docketed: 2018-09-27
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Amici (2)
Tags: civil-procedure egregious-conduct fee-shifting halo-standard halo-v-pulse intentional-knowing notice-requirement objective-reasonableness patent-damages willful-infringement
Key Terms:
DueProcess Securities Patent Copyright JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2018-12-07
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether courts must consider all relevant circumstances, including evidence that the defendant's position was objectively reasonable, in determining whether to enhance damages for 'egregious' infringement under §284

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016), this Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s misuse of “objective reasonableness” as a categorical bar to enhanced patent damages, but did not disturb the settled principle that the reasonableness of an infringer’s conduct is relevant in identifying “egregious” behavior warranting enhanced damages. Below, the District Court enhanced damages despite evidence that another Article III court had granted Corning summary judgment of non-infringement on the same claims. The District Court thus joined a growing number of courts in concluding that a finding of willful infringement suffices to support enhanced damages, regardless of the reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Moreover, the jury’s willfulness finding was infected by an instruction that infringement was willful if Corning “should have known” that it likely infringed—a negligence standard that violates the “intentional or knowing” standard established in Halo. That issue is also before this Court in Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., BRP U.S. Inc., v. Arctic Cat Inc., No. 17-1645 (pet. for cert. filed June 6, 2018). The questions presented are: 1. In determining whether to enhance damages for “egregious” infringement under §284, must courts consider all relevant circumstances, including evidence that the defendant’s position was objectively reasonable? 2. Does a finding of willful infringement based on a “should have known” standard violate the requirement that willfulness be “intentional or knowing”? ii RULE 29.6 DISCLOSURE Corning Optical Communications RF LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Corning Oak Holding LLC, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Corning Inc., a publicly traded company. To our knowledge, no other publicly held corporation holds 10% or more of stock in Corning Optical Communications RF LLC or Corning Oak Holding LLC.

Docket Entries

2018-12-10
Petition DENIED.
2018-11-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/7/2018.
2018-11-20
Reply of petitioner Corning Optical Communications RF LLC filed.
2018-11-05
Brief of respondent PPC Broadband, Inc. in opposition filed.
2018-10-29
Brief amicus curiae of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed.
2018-10-29
Brief amicus curiae of Askeladden L.L.C. filed.
2018-10-19
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 5, 2018.
2018-10-18
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 29, 2018 to November 5, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-09-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 29, 2018)
2018-08-03
Application (18A128) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until September 27, 2018.
2018-08-02
Application (18A128) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from August 12, 2018 to September 27, 2018, submitted to The Chief Justice.

Attorneys

Askeladden L.L.C.
Gregory Hayes LantierWilmer Cutler Pickering, Amicus
Gregory Hayes LantierWilmer Cutler Pickering, Amicus
Corning Optical Communications RF LLC
Kimball R. AndersonWinston & Strawn, Petitioner
Kimball R. AndersonWinston & Strawn, Petitioner
PPC Broadband, Inc.
John Michael JakesFinnegan, Henderson, et al., Respondent
John Michael JakesFinnegan, Henderson, et al., Respondent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Clyde Moody SiebmanSiebman Forrest Burg & Smith, LLP, Amicus
Clyde Moody SiebmanSiebman Forrest Burg & Smith, LLP, Amicus