Today, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in two cases of interest to the business community:

Patents—Enhanced Damages for Willful Patent Infringement

Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., No. 14-1513
Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., No. 14-1520

Upon a finding of willful patent infringement, the Patent Act gives a court discretion to increase damages to up to three times the amount found by the jury or assessed by the court. To assess a damages multiplier, the Federal Circuit requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant (i) had no objectively reasonable basis for its position and (ii) acted in subjective bad faith. Last Term, in Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014), the Supreme Court rejected a substantively identical test for determining whether attorneys' fees should be granted under the Patent Act. The Supreme Court consolidated two cases and granted certiorari to determine whether the Federal Circuit's two-part willfulness test is also barred by Octane Fitness.

Federal Power Act—Preemption

Hughes v. PPL Energyplus, No. 14-614
CPV Maryland v. PPL Energyplus, No. 14-623

The Federal Power Act splits authority among states, utilities, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). States regulate generation facilities and retail rates, while FERC has exclusive jurisdiction over regulation of wholesale rates. Maryland entered into an agreement with CPV Maryland LLC to construct a power plant in Maryland that would sell energy in federal interstate wholesale markets, in exchange for certain subsidies based on the clearing price for energy sold on the wholesale market. The Supreme Court consolidated two cases and granted certiorari to determine whether Maryland's agreement is preempted by the Federal Power Act under theories of field or conflict preemption.

Please visit us at

Visit us at

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2015. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.