The trouble with requiring "willfulness" is that it requires proving the state of mind of the infringer. This is difficult, and it's not even clear what "state of mind" means for a corporation. See in re Segate, where the CAFC tried to define "willful infringment" with an objective test.[1]
A stronger remedy than triple damages exists in patent law - an injunction against infringement. Some years ago, Polaroid won an injunction against Kodak for infringing their instant photography patents. Kodak was given 30 days to exit the instant photography business and had to buy all their cameras for that process back from consumers. They did, and that was the end of Kodak's instant photography business. The injunction remedy still exists, but is no longer routinely available since eBay vs. MercExchange. in 2006.[2]
Without patents, there's little incentive to innovate unless you can throw enough money at a startup to get dominant market share before someone else copies you. VCs used to want to see a strong intellectual property position before putting in money; then they had some assurance of not losing their investment even if the technology works. This has been less of an issue for non-technology startups; Doordash, etc. are not technology companies.
The case to which this brief is attached is not about software. It's about a new way to attach transformers to printed circuit boards with surface-mount soldering. Halo, a small startup, developed a way to do this which solved a problem with the solder joints cracking during heating. Pulse, a much bigger company whose transformers tended to crack loose after soldering, copied this and refused to pay royalties. Halo has won the infringement issue; the only remaining question is how much Pulse has to pay them.
[1] http://www.law360.com/articles/102863/seagate-the-issue-of-w... [2] http://www.bna.com/supreme-courts-ebay-n17179924841/