Oct. 2 at 7:38 PM
$BCHT Courts use “pirate-like” (from Halo v. Pulse) to mean conduct that goes beyond garden-variety infringement—where the infringer acts as if they can flout patent rights because the upside outweighs the downside.
In your case, the court noted that CERT stood to lose about
$300–350 million in tax credits if it stopped supplying refined coal once the patents were asserted . Continuing to infringe to secure that windfall, especially after being put on notice, looks much closer to “deliberate, flagrant, consciously wrongful” behavior than an honest dispute over patent scope.
So yes: continuing to infringe just to rake in
$300M+ is the kind of profit-driven disregard for patent rights that courts often cite as justification for enhanced damages. Whether the judge calls it “pirate-like” depends on how harshly he views CERT’s motives, but that fact pattern fits the spirit of Halo’s guidance.
