v. Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d 816, 826-27 (Fed.Cir.1992), abrogated in part on other grounds, Markman, 52 F.3d at 975. This court, therefore, addresses only the district court’s grant of enhanced damages. To be sure, this court has enunciated its strong preference that a district court set forth its rationale for an award of enhanced damages to facilitate appellate review. Read, 970 F.2d at 828 (“To enable appellate review, a district court is obligated to explain the basis for the award, particularly where the maximum amount is imposed.”). On the other hand, this court has also recognized the competing public policy of conserving judicial resources and has cautioned that a remand is a “step not taken lightly.” Consol. Aluminum Corp. v. Foseco Int'l Ltd., 910 F.2d 804, 814 (Fed.Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). As this court found in Consolidated Aluminum,
holding that an appellate court can affirm a district courts order on any basis for which there is a record sufficient to permit conclusions of law including grounds upon which the district court did not rely recognizing factual review limited by constitution to direct appellate courts which includes court of criminal appeals when serving as direct appellate court in capital cases in which death penalty has been assessed holding that the court does not have jurisdiction to review per curiam decisions of the district courts of appeal that merely affirm with citations to cases not pending review in this court holding that a remand should be limited to cases in which further action must be taken by the district court or in which the appellate court has no way open to it to affirm or reverse the district courts action under review holding that district court has no jurisdiction to take further action where there was no remand order