Bayer v. Dow was decided on March 17, 2017 on appeal from the District of Delaware. There, after finding for defendant Dow on summary judgment, the district court awarded Dow attorney fees, concluding that plaintiff “Bayer’s weak positions on the merits and litigation conduct supported a finding that this was an exceptional …
National Oilwell Varco v. Omron is a nonprecedential case decided on January 25, 2017 on appeal from the Western District of Texas.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 …
This posts analyzes trends at the district courts pre and post Octane Fitness (decided April 29, 2014). The pre-Octane-Fitness period runs from March 2011 to April 29, 2014. And the post-Octane-Fitness period runs from April 30, 2014 to Jun 2, 2017. The data includes only attorney-fees determinations under § 285. The motion granted category includes both …
Large Audience Display v. Tennman is a nonprecedential case decided on October 20, 2016 on appeal from the Central District of California.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 …
Stryker v. Zimmer was decided on September 12, 2016 on appeal from the Western District of Michigan. There, a jury found plaintiff-Stryker’s patents valid and infringed, awarded $70 million in lost profits, and found that defendant-Zimmer willfully infringed under the then-controlling Seagate standard. The district court then issued an order rejecting Zimmer’s motion …
Because of the spate of recent Federal Circuit cases on the attorney-fees standard, I will write a post on the current state of the law of exceptionality under § 285. Supreme Court Section 285 of the Patent Act provides that a district “court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney …
Mankes v. Vivid Seats was decided on April 22, 2016 on appeal from the Eastern District of North Carolina. There, the district court granted judgment on the pleadings for the defendants, finding no direct infringement. The district court then denied Vivid Seats request for attorney fees, finding the case not exceptional. …
Site Update v. CBS is a nonprecedential case decided on February 1, 2016 on appeal from the Northern District of California. There, after plaintiff Site Update and defendant Newegg agreed to dismiss the claims between them, the district court, applying Octane Fitness, denied Newegg’s request for attorney’s fees under § 285. Newegg appealed. The …
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 § …
Integrated v. Rudolph is a nonprecedential case decided on October 21, 2015, up on appeal for the second time from the District of Arizona. There, the jury returned a verdict of infringement and willfulness. At trial, it was discovered that defendant Rudolph continued to contest infringement even though its CEO personally thought that …