U.S. Supreme Court to Determine Standard for Awarding Enhanced Patent Damages

From the U.S. Supreme Court's Order List for today:

14-1513  HALO ELECTRONICS, INC. V. PULSE ELECTRONICS, INC., ET AL.
14-1520  STRYKER CORPORATION, ET AL. V. ZIMMER, INC., ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 14-1513 is granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 14-1520 is granted. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. The motion of Independent Inventor Groups for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The motion of Nokia Technologies OY, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted.

Here is question 1 from Halo:

1. Whether the Federal Circuit erred by applying a rigid, two-part test for enhancing patent infringement damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, that is the same as the rigid, two-part test this Court rejected last term in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014) for imposing attorney fees under the similarly-worded 35 U.S.C. § 285.

Here are the questions presented in Stryker:

1. Has the Federal Circuit improperly abrogated the plain meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 284 by forbidding any award of enhanced damages unless there is a finding of willfulness under a rigid, two-part test, when this Court recently rejected an analogous framework imposed on 35 U.S.C. § 285, the statute providing for attorneys’ fee awards in exceptional cases?

2. Does a district court have discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 284 to award enhanced damages where an infringer intentionally copied a direct competitor’s patented invention, knew the invention was covered by multiple patents, and made no attempt to avoid infringing the patents on that invention?

Links to SCOTUS Blog and Patently-O here.  I'll be back with more later this afternoon.