Federal Circuit on calculating reasonable Section 285 attorney fees under Octane Fitness

Section 285 of the Patent Act provides that a district “court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” The Supreme Court in Octane Fitness v. Icon Health held that an exceptional case “is simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a …

Willfulness, enhancement, and attorney fees vacated

SRI International v. Cisco was originally decided on March 20, 2019, and modified on July 12, 2019 on appeal from the District of Delaware. In the modified opinion, the Federal Circuit vacated the award of attorney fees, which was based in part on the vacated willfulness finding, and remanded for further consideration …

Willfulness and enhancement vacated, but exceptionality finding affirmed

This opinion was superseded.  SRI International v. Cisco was decided on March 20, 2019 on appeal from the District of Delaware. The district court denied defendant Cisco’s motion for summary judgment of patent ineligibility and anticipation. At trial, the jury found willful infringement, and awarded plaintiff SRI a 3.5% reasonable royalty rate …

Lower court did not err in using aggregate method instead of apportionment to award fees

Drop Stop v. Zhu is a nonprecedential case decided on February 8, 2019 on appeal from the Central District of California. After the parties reached a settlement stipulating to infringement of some claims, plaintiff Drop Stop moved for attorney fees. The district court granted the motion and awarded $600,000 in fees …

Fees for entire suit proper where plaintiff’s misconduct permeated the entire case

Large Audience Display v. Tennman is a nonprecedential case decided on August 20, 2018 on appeal from the Central District of California. After the PTO issued an IPR certificate cancelling all of Plaintiff Large Audience’s claims asserted in the district court, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice. On remand …

It was error to award all requested fees without causal connection between the misconduct and the award

Rembrandt v. Comcast was decided on July 27, 2018 on appeal from the District of Delaware. After several years of litigation by plaintiff Rembrandt “against dozens of cable companies, cable equipment manufacturers, and broadcast networks,” the district court “entered final judgment against Rembrandt as to all claims.” After an adverse claim construction, …

Attorney fee award affirmed in longstanding Octane Fitness saga

ICON v. Octane Fitness is a nonprecedential case decided on August 25, 2017 on appeal from the District of Minnesota. There, the district court awarded $1.6 million in attorney fees to defendant Octane Fitness, finding the case exceptional on remand from the Supreme Court. Plaintiff ICON appealed the exceptionality finding, and Octane …

Attorney fees warranted for litigant’s refusal to produce an issue-dispositive document

National Oilwell Varco v. Omron is a nonprecedential case decided on January 25, 2017 on appeal from the Western District of Texas. There, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice, finding that plaintiff Oilwell lacked standing, and awarded attorney fees to defendant Omron based on the exceptional nature of Oilwell’s litigation conduct. The …

In calculating attorney fees, the trial court should use market rates of the forum state

Large Audience Display v. Tennman is a nonprecedential case decided on October 20, 2016 on appeal from the Central District of California. There, after the PTO issued an IPR certificate cancelling all of Plaintiff Large Audience’s claims asserted in the district court, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice. Defendants …

No enhancement because the lodestar method is presumptively reasonable for attorney fees

Lumen View Tech. v. Findthebest.com was decided on January 22, 2016 on appeal from the Southern District of New York. There, the district court held that plaintiff-Lumen View’s patent was directed to an abstract idea, and therefore was invalid under § 101. Defendant Findthebest then moved for an award of attorney fees under § …