The Court ruled that, "[T]he historical once-only nominal award of damages [the Anton Pillar Order
Structure] is inapplicable in the case of a group of defendants whose continuous and blatantly recidivist infringing activities have taken place over a period of three years O If a plaintiff was only entitled to a single award of damages under the 'nominal' damages scale for multiple occasions of infringement, then once a defendant was found liable for infringement, the defendant would essentially be immune from liability for damages for all subsequent infringements.
She wrote, "The unusually high level of disclosure imposed in this case is justified by: the underlying fact that the defendants were employees of the plaintiff when they began working in competition with the plaintiff, the judicial determination that this was an appropriate case in which to issue an Anton Pillar order
, the size of the claim, which exceeds $50 million, and the great IT expertise of the parties which presupposes that at least some of the work required to provide the required level of disclosure can be done in-house.
Norwich orders are often granted in conjunction with other similar litigation-affiliated equitable remedies: Mareva injunctions (to identify and locate assets), Anton Pillar orders
(to identify and locate evidence for preservation) and Bankers' Trust orders (to trace and preserve assets in which the wronged party has a proprietary interest).