On the surface, the Halo Effect seemed to have been a victory for patent owners, but has it really worked out that way?

Historically, patent owners have pled willful infringement to support enhanced damages from an infringer. But over the years, the courts have made it more and more difficult to prove willful infringement, culminating with the Federal Circuit's ruling in In re Seagate. Seagate set up a two-part test that made it hard to establish willful infringement as well as to obtain enhanced damages.

In June 2016, the Supreme Court ruled in Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs. Inc. that the Federal Circuit's Seagate analysis for willfulness was too restrictive. The Court restructured the willfulness analysis to eliminate the objective recklessness analysis, and lowered the burden of proof from a convincing standard to a preponderance of the evidence standard. Also, the court held that an award of enhanced damages is in the discretion of the district court to be awarded in egregious cases.