Craig Hoovler, an associate in the firm's Intellectual Property practice group, wrote an article for Opening Statement, the official publication of the Virginia Bar Association's Young Lawyers Division, on the effects the Supreme Court's decision in Halo Electronics has on non-practicing entities making a case for willful infringement.

With the Supreme Court’s decision in Halo Electronics overruling the 2007 Seagate case, non-practicing entities (“NPEs”) may resume an old, familiar practice to enable them to make a case for willful infringement. Before the Federal Circuit’s decision in Seagate, NPEs would often send a list of patents in their possession to numerous businesses which possessed or produced items or utilized processes which in the view of the NPE arguably infringed any of the patents on the list. The reason for sending the list was to set up a claim for willful infringement against any parties whom the NPE sued in court by demonstrating that the parties being sued had notice of the listed patents but chose to continue their infringing activities anyway. A recipient of the list risked liability for willful infringement, which may be penalized with up to treble damages.