Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

Press Releases

Fish Wins Jury Verdict for HALO Electronics in Patent Suit

November 27, 2012

Press Releases

Fish Wins Jury Verdict for HALO Electronics in Patent Suit

November 27, 2012

Back to News Listing

Las Vegas, NV, November 27, 2012 – Fish & Richardson announced today that it won a jury verdict on November 26, 2012 for HALO Electronics, Inc. in a long-running patent dispute involving a package design for surface mount components used in electronics products.  The jury found that defendants Pulse Electronics, Inc. and Pulse Electronics, Corp. willfully infringed eight claims of three HALO patents and ordered them to pay HALO a royalty of $1.5 million for past damages.  In addition to the award of past damages, the court may award a future remedy that could include an ongoing royalty or an injunction, either of which will be decided in the coming months.  The defendants had accused HALO of infringing two of their patents, but HALO prevailed on those claims before trial.

HALO’s patented technology has been widely used in the industry.  Five of HALO’s competitors have taken licenses to the HALO patent portfolio.  Each of these competitors is paying HALO royalties for the right to continue selling components using HALO’s innovative design.

HALO is a family-run business that was founded in 1991.  The company is based in Las Vegas and is a leading global supplier of communication and low power management magnetics for the electronics industry.  HALO’s patented packaging technology houses magnetic components, such as transformers, that are commonly found in computers, routers, and other electronic devices that have an Ethernet connection.  HALO sued the defendants in 2007.

Fish principals Thomas Melsheimer and William Woodford were co-lead trial counsel in the case.  “Halo is an example of small business ingenuity that came up with an idea so good that larger companies, like Pulse, decided to copy it,” said Melsheimer.  “Pulse’s willful infringement was seen by the jury for what it was – a large corporation taking and using the innovation of a much smaller rival.”

Stay current with Fish Sign up for our Newsletter