Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 19 Oct 2015

1. The Patent Act provides that district courts "may increase ... damages up to three times the amount found or assessed." 35 U.S.C. § 284. Despite this permissive and discretionary language, the Federal Circuit requires, as a prerequisite to awarding enhanced damages under §284, that a patentee prove by clear and convincing evidence that infringement was "willful," meaning both that (1) there was an objectively high likelihood that the infringer's actions constituted infringement, and (2) this likelihood was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer. The questions presented are:
2. 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?
3. 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?

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case involved a patent infringement dispute between Stryker Corporation and Zimmer, Inc. over medical device technology related to pulsed lavage devices used in orthopedic surgeries. The main issue was whether the lower court's decision to award enhanced damages for willful infringement should be upheld. The Supreme Court reviewed the Federal Circuit’s application of its two-part test from In re Seagate Technology, LLC, which required showing both objective recklessness and subjective knowledge by the infringer for awarding enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C §284. The Court found that this rigid framework unduly limited district courts' discretion in awarding such damages and did not align with historical practice or statutory intent. Consequently, it vacated the Federal Circuit's judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion emphasizing broader judicial discretion.