Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.

Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

August 5, 2016, Decided

2013-1472, 2013-1656

Opinion

 [*1371]  [***1656]   Lourie, Circuit Judge.

This case has returned to us on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. In its earlier appearance in this court, Halo Electronics, Inc. ("Halo") appealed from the decisions of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (1) granting summary judgment that Pulse Electronics, Inc. and Pulse Electronics Corp. (collectively, "Pulse") did not sell or offer to sell within the United States the accused products that Pulse manufactured, shipped, and delivered to buyers outside the United States and thus that Pulse did not directly infringe Halo's U.S. Patents 5,656,985 ("the '985 patent"),  [*1372]  6,297,720 ("the '720 patent"), and 6,344,785 ("the '785 patent") (collectively, "the Halo patents") with respect to those [**2]  products; and (2) holding that, with respect to the accused products that Pulse sold and delivered in the United States, Pulse's infringement of the Halo patents was not willful, and thus declining to enhance damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. See Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Eng'g, Inc., 810 F. Supp. 2d 1173, 1205-08 (D. Nev. 2011) (sale and offer for sale); Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., No. 2:07-CV-00331, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74799, 2013 WL 2319145, at *14-16 (D. Nev. May 28, 2013) (willfulness); Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., No. 2:07-CV-00331, ECF No. 523, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74799 (D. Nev. May 28, 2013) (final judgment awarding damages without enhancement).

Pulse cross-appealed from the district court's decisions (1) construing the claim limitation "electronic surface mount package" in the Halo patents; (2) construing the claim limitation "contour element" in Pulse's U.S. Patent 6,116,963 ("the '963 patent") that Pulse asserted in its counterclaim; and (3) holding that the asserted claims of the Halo patents were not invalid for obviousness. See Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Eng'g, Inc., 721 F. Supp. 2d 989, 998-1001 (D. Nev. 2010) (claim construction); Halo, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74799, 2013 WL 2319145, at *1-7 (obviousness); Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., No. 2:07-CV-00331, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117190, 2013 WL 4458754, at *1-3 (D. Nev. Aug. 16, 2013) (obviousness).

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

831 F.3d 1369 *; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14366 **; 119 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1654 ***

HALO ELECTRONICS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. PULSE ELECTRONICS, INC. AND PULSE ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, Defendants-Cross-Appellants

Subsequent History: Appeal dismissed by Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9182 (Fed. Cir., May 26, 2017)

Prior History:  [**1] Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada in No. 07-CV-0331, Judge Philip M. Pro.

Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117190 (D. Nev., Aug. 16, 2013)Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Eng'g, Inc., 810 F. Supp. 2d 1173, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100122 (D. Nev., Sept. 6, 2011)Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74799 (D. Nev., May 28, 2013)Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Eng'g, Inc., 721 F. Supp. 2d 989, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138770 (D. Nev., June 14, 2010)

Disposition: AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

CORE TERMS

patents, infringement, products, manufactured, district court, electronic, shipped, offer to sell, package, willful, negotiations, abroad, enhanced damage, asserted claim, contracting, damages, enhance, invalid, summary judgment, mount, pricing, surface, buyer, end product, extraterritorial, cross-appealed, selling, sales, suppliers, terms

Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Appropriateness, Patent Law, Infringement Actions, Appeals, Appeals, Summary Judgment Review, Standards of Review, Business & Corporate Compliance, Patent Law, Infringing Acts, Jurisdiction, In Rem & Personal Jurisdiction, In Personam Actions, Infringing Acts, Offers to Sell & Sales, Commercial Law (UCC), Sales (Article 2), Subject Matter, Definitions, Governments, Legislation, Effect & Operation, Exclusive Rights, Geographic Scope of Patents, Remedies, Damages, Increased Damages