patent again in 2003, and implemented the infringing custom XML editor with the
purpose of rendering i4i’s products obsolete. Although statutorily authorized to increase
the award to $600 million, the district court awarded only $40 million in enhanced
damages. See 35 U.S.C. § 284.
On this record, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in
Buckeye Steel Castings Co., 24 F.3d 178, 184 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The district court made
detailed factual findings which, taken together, support its award of enhanced damages.
See Jurgens v. CBK, Ltd., 80 F.3d 1566, 1570-71 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In deciding whether
to enhance damages, the district court properly declined to reapply the test for
willfulness set out in Seagate, 497 F.3d 1360. Although a finding of willfulness is a
prerequisite for enhancing damages under § 284, the standard for deciding whether—
and by how much—to enhance damages is set forth in Read, not Seagate. See 35
U.S.C. § 284; SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Advanced Tech. Labs., Inc., 127 F.3d 1462, 1468-69
(Fed. Cir. 1997); cf. Seagate, 497 F.3d at 1371. Here, the question of willfulness was
submitted to the jury. Microsoft does not dispute that the jury instructions were proper
under Seagate, 497 F.3d at 1371. The test for willfulness is distinct and separate from
the factors guiding a district court’s discretion regarding enhanced damages. Compare
id., with Read, 970 F.2d at 826-27. Under the Read factors, the district court properly
considered Microsoft’s size and financial condition, as well as whether Microsoft
Bridgewood Servs., Inc., 290 F.3d 1364, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2002).