Source: https://lifescienceip.wordpress.com/2017/05/30/halo-electronics-inc-v-pulse-electronics-inc-et-al-3/
Timestamp: 2019-12-06 05:52:14
Document Index: 303913704

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1295', '§ 1295', '§ 284', '§ 17', '§ 1295', '§ 1295']

← Rivera et al. v. International Trade Commission and Solofill, LLC (Intervenor)
Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC →
Docket No. 2016-2006
LOURIE, MOORE, HUGHES
Brief Summary: FC panel determined it lacked jurisdiction under § 1295(a)(1) or § 1295(c)(2) because “the order appealed from is itself non-final”.
Summary: Pulse appealed from DC’s award of prejudgment interest to Halo for infringement of US 5,656,985; 6,297,720; and 6,344,785 (“Halo patents”). This case reached the DC after SCOTUS held that the enhanced damages test applied” by in the FC’s 2014 decision (“Original Mandate”) “was inconsistent with § 284” (Halo, US 2016) which was then vacated (“Remand Mandate”). The award at issue here was granted prior to recall of the Original Mandate and awarded “(1) prejudgment interest ‘at the rate set forth in Nev. Rev. Stat. § 17.130, compounded annually, through May 28, 2013’’ (2) post-judgment interest; and (3) supplemental damages for direct infringement” but “did not set the amount of total prejudgment interest or the date from which to begin calculating such interest” and “ordered Halo to prepare an updated calculation” and “Pulse to produce financial data to Halo to assess supplemental inducement damages.” The DC then entered a stipulation of satisfaction of judgment for [] $1.5 million damages award, including costs, supplemental damages, and post-judgment interest”, “expressly excluding prejudgment interest, enhanced damages, and attorney fees” which “[a]s of the oral argument on April 5, 2017…remained unresolved by the” the lower court. The FC panel first determined that it lacked jurisdiction over this appeal under § 1295(a)(1) or § 1295(c)(2) (exceptions, “to be interpreted narrowly” (Arlington, FC 2014; Alfred E. Mann, FC 2016)) because “there is not final decision” since DC “never resolved the parties’ dispute regarding the date from which to begin calculating prejudgment interest or set the amount of prejudgment interest” (“the order appealed from is itself non-final”). This decision notes that “Pulse has preserved its right to later file a proper appeal concerning a final award of prejudgment interest.” Thus, this appeal was dismissed.
This entry was posted in Appeal, Damages, Jurisdiction. Bookmark the permalink.