“Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.”的意思、由来-开放百科全书

词条

Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.

释义

Opinion of the Court
References
External links

{{Infobox SCOTUS case
|Litigants=Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.
|ArgueDate=February 23
|ArgueYear=2016
|DecideDate=June 13
|DecideYear=2016
|FullName=Halo Electronics, Inc., Petitioner v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., et al.; Stryker Corporation, et al., Petitioners v. Zimmer, Inc., et al.
|Docket=14-1513
|Docket2=14-1520
|OpinionAnnouncement=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1513_db8e.pdf
|USVol=579
|USPage=___
|ParallelCitations=136 S. Ct. 1923; 195 L. Ed. 2d 278; 2016 U.S. LEXIS 3776; 84 U.S.L.W. 4386; 118 U.S.P.Q.2d 1761
|Prior=*Claims construed, 721 F. Supp. 2d [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20100616600 989] (D. Nev. 2010); summary judgment granted, 810 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (D. Nev. 2011); affirmed, 769 F.3d [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20141021347 1371] (Fed. Cir. 2014); cert. granted, 136 S.Ct. 356 (2015)

Judgment as a matter of law denied, Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer Inc., [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4293414/537/stryker-corporation-v-zimmer-inc/ No. 1:10-cv-1223], 2013 WL 6231533 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 7, 2013), affirmed in part, vacated in part, reversed in part, 774 F.3d [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20141219195 1349] (Fed. Cir. 2014), superseded on rehearing, 782 F.3d [https://www.leagle.com/decision/inadvfco150624000286 649] (Fed. Cir. 2015); cert. granted, 136 S.Ct. 356 (2015)

|Subsequent=
|Holding=
|SCOTUS=2016
|Majority=Roberts
|JoinMajority=unanimous
|Concurrence=Breyer
|JoinConcurrence=Kennedy, Alito
|LawsApplied=
}}Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. ___ (2016),^[1] was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the two-part Seagate test, used to determine when a district court may increase damages for patent infringement, is not consistent with Section 284 of the Patent Act.^[2]

Opinion of the Court

Chief Justice John Roberts authored a unanimous opinion.^[1]

References

1. ^¹{{ussc|name=Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.|volume=579|year=2016|docket= 14–1513}}.
2. ^SCOTUSblog coverage

External links

{{caselaw source

| case = Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., {{ussc|579|___|2016|el=no}}
| courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3212622/halo-electronics-inc-v-pulse-electronics-inc/
| googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13800665423501484885
| justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/579/14-1513/
| oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-1513
| other_source1 = Supreme Court (slip opinion)
| other_url1 =https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1513_db8e.pdf

SCOTUSblog coverage

4 : United States Supreme Court cases|United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court|2016 in United States case law|United States patent case law

随便看

开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。