What Constitutes 'A Sale' and 'an Offer to Sell'?

In Nov. 2012, a federal jury in Nevada awarded Halo $1.5 million for infringement of three of Halo's patents, each entitled 'Electronic Surface Mount Package.' Halo claimed Pulse infringed by making, using or selling surface mount transformers or devices that have an electronic surface mount package. In May 2013, the trial judge ruled on the legal determinations of Pulse's obviousness defense and the objective element of Halo's willfulness claim and entered judgment in favor of Halo, except on the issue of willfulness.

On Oct. 22, 2014, the Federal Circuit (by Circuit Judge Lourie, with Circuit Judges O'Malley and Hughes concurring) affirmed the lower court's holding: 1) Pulse directly infringed U.S. patents owned by Halo with respect to products that Pulse directly imported into the U.S.; 2) that Pulse was liable for indirect infringement by inducement with respect to products that Pulse delivered abroad but which were ultimately imported into the U.S. by others; 3) that such infringement was not willful; and 4) that Pulse was not liable for direct infringement with respect to products that Pulse delivered to its customers abroad.