Page 1 of 45

Nos. 14-1513, -1520

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

Halo Electronics, Inc.,

Petitioner,

v.

Pulse Electronics, Inc. and

Pulse Electronics Corporation,

Respondents.

Stryker Corporation, Stryker Puerto

Rico, Ltd., and Stryker Sales Corporation,

Petitioners,

v.

Zimmer, Inc. and Zimmer Surgical, Inc.,

Respondents.

On Writs of Certiorari to the United States Court of

Appeals for the Federal Circuit

BRIEF OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, THE ELECTRONIC

FRONTIER FOUNDATION, AND ENGINE ADVOCACY

AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY

Daniel Nazer

Electronic Frontier

Foundation

815 Eddy Street

San Francisco, CA 94109

(415) 436-9333

daniel@eff.org

Charles Duan

Counsel of Record

Public Knowledge

1818 N Street NW, Suite 410

Washington, DC 20036

(202) 861-0020

cduan@publicknowledge.org

Counsel for amici curiae

Rev. af753ad0

Page 2 of 45

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE . . . . . . . . . . . 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

I. The Regular Use of Patents as Instruments

of Threats Against Small Companies Counsels

Against Expanding Enhanced Damages . . . . . 5

A. History Shows the Devastating Result of

Expanding Enhanced Damages . . . . . . . . 8

B. A Lower Threshold to Enhanced Dam- ages Would Increase the Threat Value of

Abusive Patent Demands . . . . . . . . . . 11

II. A Rigorous Bar to Enhanced Damages Is Nec- essary to Avoid These Public Harms . . . . . . 13

A. District Court Discretion Should Be Cab- ined to Avoid Exacerbating an Already

Troubling Forum Shopping Situation . . . 13

B. Enhanced Damages Under Section 284

Should Require a Showing of Subjective

Bad Faith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

C. Bad Faith Should Not Follow from a Rea- sonable Belief in Invalidity, Regardless of

When the Belief Was Perfected . . . . . . . 22

III. Petitioners’ Reasons for Expanding Enhanced

Damages Are Detached from the Reality of

Patent Assertion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

(i)