461 U.S. 648 (1983) Cited 525 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that some circumstances, such as a patentee's undue delay in prosecuting the lawsuit, may justify limiting or withholding prejudgment interest but noting that "prejudgment interest should be awarded under § 284 absent some justification for withholding such an award"
Holding "patentee may obtain lost profit damages for that portion of the infringer's sales for which the patentee can demonstrate 'but for' causation and reasonable royalties for any remaining infringing [sales]"; further holding patentee may also recover for "[r]eduction of [its] prices, and consequent loss of profits, enforced by infringing competition"
Holding that the objective prong under Seagate was ultimately a question of law for the court, but leaving the subjective prong as a question of fact for the jury
Holding that post judgment interest is mandatory, and noting that the “[f]ailure to award post[-]judgment interest would create an incentive for defendants to exploit the time value of money by frivolously appealing or otherwise delaying payment.”
Holding that jury is free to consider alleged infringer's behavior as party to the litigation as part of the totality of the circumstances when determining willful infringement