“Awards of enhanced damages are not to be meted out in a typical infringement case, but are instead designed as a punitive or vindictive sanction for egregious infringement behavior.” WCM v. IPS. There is “no requirement that enhanced damages must follow a finding of egregious misconduct.” Id. Rather, “courts should continue to take into account the particular circumstances of each case in deciding whether” to enhance damages. Id. “Because a finding of willful infringement does not command the enhancement of damages,” the Read v. Portec factors, “although not mandatory, do assist the trial court in evaluating the degree of the infringer’s culpability and in determining whether to exercise its discretion to award enhanced damages at all, and if so, by how much the damages should be increased.” WCM.
The Read factors are:
(1) whether the infringer deliberately copied the ideas or design of another;
(3) the infringer’s behavior as a party to the litigation;
(4) the infringer’s size and financial condition;
(5) the closeness of the case;
(6) the duration of the infringer’s misconduct;
(7) remedial action by the infringer;
(8) the infringer’s motivation for harm; and
(9) whether the infringer attempted to conceal its misconduct.
This post will focus on Federal Circuit decisions involving the eight Read factors: the infringer’s motivation for harm.
| Case | Strong Evidence of Motivation For Harm? | Enhanced Damages? | Enhancement Multiple | Notes |
| Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc., 670 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2012) | Yes | Yes | 2x | Enhancement was warranted because the district court found that all Read factors except one weighed in favor of enhanced damages. |
| I4I Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010) | Yes | Yes | 1.2x | Enhancement was warranted. Defendant implemented the infringing feature with the purpose of rendering plaintiff’s products obsolete, and other factors favored enhancement. |
| Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Technology Corp., 185 F.3d 1259 (Fed. Cir. 1999) | No | No | — | Enhancement was not warranted because defendant had evinced no motivation to harm plaintiff, engaged in no misconduct during litigation, had not copied the invention, and had not attempted to conceal its infringement. |
A lot of false belief has been disperse on the World Wide Web about male penis enhancement supplements. buy viagra online http://djpaulkom.tv/music-yelawolf-x-dj-paul-kom-light-switch-from-black-fall/ Her name was Clarissa, and she worked in the entertainment buy levitra http://djpaulkom.tv/category/music/page/5/ industry. Changing his diet to proteins, fruits and vegetables, is essential in buy brand levitra maintaining healthy skin tone and repairing damaged skin. Eugene, commander cialis http://djpaulkom.tv/replacing-your-online-gaming-portals/ Oregon: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, 1996. 219 pages.