chairs the Electronic and Computer Technologies practice group at Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto. Mr. Sandonato has served as lead trial counsel in patent litigations in district courts across the country, the International Trade Commission (ITC) and arbitrations. His litigation work has involved technologies such as digital cameras, flat-panel televisions, laser toner cartridges, software for managing digital music, smartphones, dental imaging systems, financial products and electronic test equipment. For more information, or to contact Mr. Sandonato, please visit his firm profile page.
In rejecting the objective prong of Seagate, the Court rejected the notion that a defendant may escape the specter of enhanced damages by asserting a defense that the defendant was unaware of at the time the infringement occurred. For example, the Court pointed out that under the Seagate test, “[t]he existence of . . . a defense insulates the infringer from enhanced damages, even if he did not act on the basis of the defense or was even aware of it.” Halo at 10. But, as the Court stated, “culpability is generally measured against the knowledge of the actor at the time of the challenged conduct.” Id. Moreover, in response to an argument by Pulse based on the Court’s earlier Safeco decision, the Court held that “[n]othing in Safeco suggests that we should look to facts that the defendant neither knew nor had reason to know at the time he acted.” Id. at 11.