Halo Does Not Require Vacating Enhanced Damages Award

The court denied defendant's motion to vacate the court's award of enhanced damages issued the same day as Halo. "[Defendant] identifies no procedural basis for its Motion . . . which would inform the Court’s standard of review. Regardless . . . the Court takes this opportunity to examine the relevant law, including the Supreme Court’s recent decision in [Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016)] . . . to ensure that the Court’s decision in which it trebled damages comports with the Supreme Court’s new guidance. . . . [T]reble damages were awarded after comprehensive – perhaps, painstakingly so – consideration of the particular circumstances of this case. . . . Trial in this case has established by clear and convincing evidence – a higher standard than is now applicable to a willfulness inquiry under Halo – that [defendant] willfully infringed [plaintiff's] patented off-throttle steering technology in contravention of the United States Patent Act. It did so with full knowledge of [plaintiff's] patent rights, without so much as approaching [plaintiff] about a license, as is demonstrated by, inter alia, its hiring of an agent to surreptitiously buy [plaintiff's] patents without disclosing [defendant] as the intended buyer. . . . Suffice it to say, [defendant] is the wanton infringer that the Supreme Court sought to punish through its relaxation of the standard governing willfulness and enhancement of damages."

Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. et al, 0-14-cv-62369 (FLSD July 27, 2016, Order) (Bloom, J.)