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 laid out the standard for exceptionality: an exceptional case “is simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position (considering both the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated.” (parenthesis in original). District courts determine exceptionality using their discretion, considering the totality of the circumstances. Under 35 U.S.C. § 285, parties show entitlement to fees by preponderance of the evidence.
Below are post-Octane Fitness v. ICON district court cases granting Section 285 attorney fees from the period April 29, 2014 to November 26, 2019. This post only deals with the reasons why the case was exceptional.
| FIRST CIRCUIT | ||
| D. Mass | Trustees of Boston University v. Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, 12-cv-11935-PBS (D. Mass. July 22, 2016) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because of defendant’s misrepresentation of certain data and because of discovery misconduct. |
| D. Mass | Sophos Incorporated v. RPost Holdings, Inc. et al, 1-13-cv-12856 (D. Mass. Feb. 2, 2018) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because of defendant’s litigation misconduct during discovery and at summary judgment. |
| D. Mass. | DataTern, Inc. v. Microstrategy, Inc., et. al., 1-11-cv-11970 (D. Mass. June 5, 2018) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff attempted to manipulate the random assignment of judges, and because plaintiff’s case became objectively baseless after the claim construction ruling. |
| D. Mass | Trustees of Boston University v. Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd., et. al., 1-12-cv-11935 (D. Mass. July 18, 2019) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s litigation tactics were unreasonable. Plaintiff’s counsel sent threatening emails to defendant’ counsel during and after trial. |
| D. Mass. | Sanderson-MacLeod, Inc. v. Hobbs Medical, Inc., 3-19-cv-30013 (D. Mass. Nov. 21, 2019) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff prepared a facially insufficient complaint based on outdated law and did not amend the complaint between defendant’s motion to dismiss and the date of the hearing on the motion. |
| SECOND CIRCUIT | ||
| S.D.N.Y. | Lumen View Technology, LLC v. Findthebest.com, Inc., 13 CIV. 3599 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2014) | Defendant is entitled to fees because of plaintiff’s “frivolous” and “objectively unreasonable” lawsuit. |
| S.D.N.Y. | Cognex Corporation et al v. Microscan Systems, Inc. et al, 1-13-cv-02027 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2014) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because defendant’s trial positions were weak and lacked support, and because of defendant’s litigation misconduct. |
| D. Conn. | Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., et. al. 3-10-cv-01827 (D. Conn. Aug. 14, 2014) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because some of defendant’s defense “bordered on frivolous,” and because defendant pursued some counterclaims claims to exponentially increase costs to plaintiff. |
| S.D.N.Y. | TNS Media Research, LLC et al v. TiVo Research and Analytics, Inc., 1-11-cv-04039 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2014) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because defendant’s litigation misconduct, frivolous proposed constructions, and baseless arguments. |
| S.D.N.Y. | Worldwide Home Products, Inc. v. Time, Inc., et. al., 1-11-cv-03633 (S.D.N.Y. April 9, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because the court found on summary judgment that plaintiff engaged in inequitable conduct, and because plaintiff alleged infringement of the wrongfully procured patent. |
| S.D.N.Y. | Advanced Video Technologies LLC v. HTC Corporation et al, 1-11-cv-06604 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff brought suit without owning the patent, and with no reasonable basis of ownership. |
| S.D.N.Y. | Gust, Inc. v. AlphaCap Ventures, LLC, 1-15-cv-06192 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2016) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s case was frivolous and objectively unreasonable in light of Alice, and because of plaintiff’s inappropriate motivation to extract a nuisance settlement. |
| D. Conn. | KX Tech LLC v. Dilmen LLC et al, 3-16-cv-00745 (D. Conn. June 28, 2017) | Magistrate Judge recommends that plaintiff is entitled to fees because defendant failed to participate in the lawsuit, defendant continued to offer the infringing product for sale after receiving notice, and after the judge entered default judgment and a permanent injunction. |
| S.D.N.Y. | Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Merus BV, 1-14-cv-01650 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2018) | Defendant is entitled to fees because of the finding of inequitable conduct against plaintiff, and because plaintiff discovery misconduct, misrepresentations, and disregard of court rules. |
| S.D.N.Y. | TNS Media Research, LLC et al v. TiVo Research and Analytics, Inc., 1-11-cv-04039 (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2018) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because it should have been clear that defendant’s infringement counterclaims had no merit. |
| D. Conn. | KX Tech LLC v. Zuma Water Filters, Inc. d/b/a Zuma Filters et al, 3-16-cv-01433 (D. Conn. July 5, 2018) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendants because defendants failed to participate, hid their identity, and because a finding of willfulness may be inferred. |
| W.D.N.Y. | Izzo Golf Inc. v. King Par Golf Inc., 6-02-cv-06012 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2019) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because of defendant’s willful infringement and its litigation misconduct, including delaying producing important documents. |
| S.D.N.Y. | EMED Technologies Corporation v. Repro-Med Systems, Inc. d/b/a RMS Medical Products, 1-18-cv-05880 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2019) | Magistrate Judge recommends that defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff pursued its infringement case based on baseless arguments, ignoring Federal Circuit authority, and which went against the prosecution history of the patent. Moreover, plaintiff litigated unreasonably by filing the case in an objectively baseless venue and by filing a pointless motion for a preliminary injunction. |
| THIRD CIRCUIT | ||
| D. Del. | Chalumeau Power Systems LLC v. Alcatel-Lucent, et. al., 1-11-cv-01175 (D. Del. Sept. 12, 2014) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s infringement theories and claim construction positions were frivolous, and because plaintiff filed the suit solely to extort a settlement fee. |
| D. Del. | Summit Data Systems LLC v. EMC Corporation, et. al., 1-10-cv-00749 (D. Del. Sept. 25, 2014) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff entered into a license two months before filing suit, in which plaintiff forfeited the right to pursue its theory of infringement against the defendant, and because plaintiff’s motivation was to extract a quick settlement. |
| D. Del. | Bayer CropScience AG, et. al. v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 1-12-cv-00256 (D. Del. Dec. 22, 2014) | Magistrate Judge recommended that defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s arguments were exceptionally weak and implausible, and because of the lack of pre-suit diligence. |
| D.N.J. | LUGUS IP LLC v. VOLVO CAR CORPORATION et al, 1-12-cv-02906 (D.N.J. Mar. 26, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because defendant’s product could not reasonably infringe plaintiff’s patent, yet plaintiff proceeded through claim construction and summary judgment. |
| E.D. Pa. | Alzheimer’s Institute of America, Inc. v. Avid Radiopharmaceuticals, et. al. 2-10-cv-06908 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 30, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff knew it was not the legal owner of the patent, yet still brought the infringement suit. |
| W.D. Pa. | Drone Technologies, Inc. v. Parrot SA et al, 2-14-cv-00111 (W.D. Pa. June 12, 2015) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because defendant refused to comply with court orders, and advanced inconsistent positions, which resulted in extensive motion practice with routine matters. |
| D. Del. | Vehicle Operation Technologies LLC v. Ford Motor Company, 1-13-cv-00539 (D. Del. July 1, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because a reasonable pre-suit investigation would have revealed that the suit was meritless, and because plaintiff’s claim construction was frivolous and objectively unreasonable. |
| D. Del. | Magnetar Technologies Corp, et. al. v. Six Flags Theme Park Inc., et. al., 1-07-cv-00127 (D. Del. July 21, 2015) | Magistrate Judge recommends that defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s arguments were objectively unreasonable regarding the inventorship of an asserted patent, and because plaintiff’s unreasonably relied on expert testimony that lacked any reliable methodology. |
| E.D. Pa. | Checkpoint Systems v. All-Tag Security, et al. 2-01-cv-02223 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 18, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s motive in bringing suit was to interfere improperly with defendant’s business, and because plaintiff conducted an inadequate pre-suit investigation. |
| D. Del. | In re: Rembrandt Technologies LP Patent Litigation, 1-07-md-01848 (D. Del. Sept. 4, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff improperly compensated fact witnesses, failed to prevent document spoliation, and should have known that some patents were unenforceable. |
| D. Del. | Nova Chemicals Corporation (Canada) et al v. Dow Chemical Company, 1-13-cv-01601 (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff filed suit seeking relief from prior judgment with theories that were not even plausible. |
| D. Del. | Vehicle Interface Technologies, LLC v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, 1-12-cv-01285 (D. Del. Dec. 28, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s improper motivations with its amended infringement contentions, and because of plaintiff’s reliance on a meritless claim construction. |
| D.N.J. | Garfum.com Corp. v. Reflections by Ruth, 1-14-cv-05919 (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2016) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff should’ve known that its claims were not patentable under Alice, and because plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the suit after defendant filed its motion to dismiss |
| D. Del. | Joao Bock Transaction Systems LLC v. Jack Henry & Associates Inc., 1-12-cv-01138 (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2016) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff pursued litigation so inefficiently as to be objectively unreasonable and burdensome for defendant and the court, initially alleging 87 accused products and later shifting infringement positions. |
| D.N.J. | Source Search Technologies, LLC v. Kayak.com, Inc., 1-11-cv-03388 (D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2016) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff should have discontinued the litigation in light of Alice after defendant filed its motion for summary judgment. |
| D. Del. | Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 1-14-cv-00448 (D. Del. May 31, 2016) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s infringement claims rested on patents whose validity were objectively unreasonable under section 101 case law. |
| D.N.J. | Sabinsa Corporation v. Olive Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd., 1-14-cv-04739 (D.N.J. May 28, 2017) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because defendant willfully infringed, failed to find new counsel on the judge’s orders, and filed a premature summary judgment motion. |
| D.N.J. | Roxane Laboratories, Inc. v. Camber Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al, 2-14-cv-04042 (D.N.J. April 12, 2017) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s infringement claim lacked any legal or factual support. |
| D.N.J. | Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. et al v. Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al, 2-16-cv-02290 (D.N.J. April 24, 2017) | Defendant is entitled to fees because of plaintiff’s unjustified maintenance of the meritless suit and its vigorous attempts to engage in overbroad discovery of highly confidential, competition information. |
| D. Del. | SRI International Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc., 1-13-cv-01534 (D. Del. June 1, 2017) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because of the jury finding of willfulness and because defendant’s litigation strategies created a substantial amount of work for plaintiff and for the court, work that was needlessly repetitive or irrelevant or frivolous. |
| D.N.J. | Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc. et al., 2-05-cv-00897 (D.N.J. May 23, 2018) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s omissions before the PTO examiner showed bad faith, and because plaintiff took contradictory positions during the litigation. |
| D.N.J. | Sabinsa Corporation v. Olive Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd., 3-16-cv-03321 (D.N.J. April 5, 2018) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because the complaint shows willfulness, and because defendant ignored plaintiff’s patent rights by failing to participate in the lawsuit. |
| D. Del. | Finnavations LLC v. Payoneer, Inc., 1-18-cv-00444 (D. Del. Mar. 18, 2019) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s litigation position was exceptionally weak. Plaintiff was unreasonable in suing on a patent clearly ineligible under Alice. |
| D. Del. | Cosmo Technologies Ltd et al v Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc., 1-15-cv-00164 (D. Del. Mar. 27, 2019) | Defendant is entitled to fees because of plaintiff’s failure to perform the necessary tests under the court’s claim construction, and because of the timing and unreasonableness of plaintiff’s decision to drop the number of asserted claims from 35 to 2 just before trial. |
| E.D. Pa. | A&H Sportswear Co., Inc. et al v. Yuan, 5-16-cv-06589 (E.D. Pa. April 30, 2019) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against default defendant because the complaint shows willful infringement of design patent. |
| D.N.J. | Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al, 1-15-cv-00369 (D.N.J. Jul. 18, 2019) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because of defendant’s unreasonable litigation positions. Defendant made arguments at odds with the evidence presented regarding its noninfringement defense. |
| FOURTH CIRCUIT | ||
| D. Md. | Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec, et. al., 1-04-cv-02607 (D. Md. May 14, 2014) | Defendant is entitled to fees because within 5 months of the suit, no reasonable litigant could expect reasonable success on the merits of the infringement claim. |
| W.D.N.C. | Precision Links, Inc. v. USA Products Group Inc., et. al., 3-08-cv-00576 (W.D.N.C. June 24, 2014) | Defendant is entitled to fees because some of plaintiff’s infringement theories were frivolous and because plaintiff engaged in litigation misconduct at the preliminary injunction stage and the appeal stage. |
| D.S.C. | Pure Fishing Inc. v. Normark Corporation, 3-10-cv-02140 (D.S.C. Oct. 28, 2014) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s pursuit of a particular claim was objectively baseless in light of the full record, because plaintiff should have recognized the extreme weakness of the claim before defendant filed its answer, and because plaintiff shifted positions with regards to the claim. |
| D. Md. | Novartis Corporation v. Webvention Holdings LLC et al, 1-11-cv-03620 (D. Md. Oct. 28, 2015) | Declaratory plaintiff is entitled to fees because of declaratory defendant’s strategy of sending hundreds of demand letters to extract nuisance value settlements, because of its misconduct at the PTO during ex parte reexam, and because of certain baseless arguments during litigation. |
| D. Md. | Astornet Technologies Inc. v. BAE Systems, Inc. et al, 8-14-cv-00245 (D. Md. Aug. 4, 2016) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff continued to litigate the case even after it knew it couldn’t prevail on the merits based on strong precedential evidence. |
| E.D. Va. | Cobalt Boats, LLC v. Sea Ray Boats, Inc. et al, 2-15-cv-00021 (E.D. Va. Oct. 31, 2017) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because the jury found willfulness, because defendant gave some false statements during the litigation, and because of defendant delay of some production during discovery. |
| E.D.N.C. | VOIT Technologies, LLC v. Del-Ton, Inc., 5-17-cv-00259 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 3, 2018) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s business model and pattern of litigation indicate a problematic motivation, and because plaintiff was more interested in settling the case than following through on the merits, and because plaintiff’s case was frivolous. |
| W.D.N.C. | Agio International Company, Ltd. v. JMH Trading International Management, LLC d/b/a World Source, 1-15-cv-00192 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 21, 2019) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because of defendant’s failure to participate, willful infringement in violation of an existing permanent injunction. |
| FIFTH CIRCUIT | ||
| S.D. Tex. | TechRadium Inc v. FirstCall Network, Inc., 4-13-cv-02487 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s infringement claims depended on a construction the court previously rejected, and because of plaintiff’s litigation history and strategy. |
| W.D. Tex. | National Oilwell Varco, LP v. Omron Oilfield & Marine, Inc., 1-12-cv-00773 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because through the course of discovery plaintiff intentionally withheld a key document relevant to the issue of standing. |
| E.D. Tex. | eDekka LLC v. 3balls.com, Inc., 2-15-cv-00541 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 17, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s patent claims were clearly directed towards unpatentable subject matter, and plaintiff proffered untenable arguments to the court in opposing the Section 101 motion, and because of plaintiff’s litigation strategy of filing suit against over 200 defendants hoping for early nuisance settlements. |
| E.D. Tex. | Adaptix, Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc., et. al., 6-12-cv-00022 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 18, 2016) | Defendant is entitled to fees because of plaintiff’s late production (5 days before trial) of relevant inventorship documents. |
| E.D. Tex. | Georgetown Rail Equipment Company v. Holland LP, 6-13-cv-00366 (E.D. Tex. June 16, 2016) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because defendant willfully infringed, because of defendant’s continued assertion of its rejected theories, and because defendant’s litigation conduct, when looked at as a whole, multiplied the proceedings and needlessly increased costs. |
| E.D. Tex. | Chrimar Systems, Inc. d/b/a CMS Technologies et al v. ADTRAN, Inc., 6-15-cv-00618 (E.D. Tex. June 30, 2016) | Magistrate Judge recommends that plaintiff is entitled to fees against a defaulting defendant because defendant’s failure to participate in the action caused plaintiff to expend significant resources addressing default proceedings. |
| S.D. Tex. | Chaffin v. Braden et al, 6-14-cv-00027 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 1, 2016) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff persisted in asserting meritless positions for over two years, and because of plaintiff’s unreasonable conduct before and during the litigation. |
| N.D. Tex. | Raniere v. Microsoft Corp, 3-15-cv-00540 (N.D. Tex. Sept 2, 2016) | Defendant is entitled to fees because of plaintiff’s untruthful testimony, and overall litigation conduct, which showed a pattern of obfuscation and bad faith. |
| N.D. Tex. | Wright v. E-Systems LLC et al, 3-12-cv-04715 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 20, 2016) | Magistrate Judge recommends that plaintiff is entitled to fees against a defaulting defendant because defendant’s inactivity consumed over 2 and a half years of plaintiff’s and the court’s time. |
| E.D. Tex. | Iris Connex, LLC v. Dell Inc., 2-15-cv-01915 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2017) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s infringement theory was baseless, because plaintiff’s proposed claim construction was unreasonable, because of plaintiff’s offer to settle for below the costs of defense, and because of plaintiff’s pattern of suing many defendants. |
| N.D. Tex. | Richmond v. SW Closeouts Inc et al, 3-14-cv-04298 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2017) | Magistrate Judge recommends that plaintiff is entitled to fees against a defaulting defendant because of defendant’s inactivity. |
| E.D. La. | Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., et. al., 2-07-cv-06510 (E.D. La. Mar 8, 2017) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because of defendant’s misconduct throughout the litigation and aggressive tactics immediately before and during trial; in fact, defendant was sanctioned multiple times. |
| E.D. Tex. | Huang et al v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., 2-15-cv-01413 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2017) | Defendant is entitled to fees, notwithstanding that plaintiff was acting pro se, because plaintiff showed no evidence of a meaningful pre-suit investigation, and because the evidence showed that plaintiff’s motive was to extract a settlement. |
| N.D. Tex. | SAP America Inc v. InvestPic LLC, 3-16-cv-02689 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 7, 2017) | Declaratory judgment plaintiff is entitled to fees because declaratory defendant asserted patent claims after being warned by the USPTO that the claims were likely invalid under Section 101, and because defendant conducted “self help discovery” by reaching out to plaintiff’s sales people. |
| E.D. Tex. | Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman), Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, 4-14-cv-00371 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 13, 2017) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because of defendant’s continued willful infringement, material misrepresentations to the court, and untimely discovery responses. |
| E.D. Tex. | VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., et. al., 6-10-cv-00417 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2017) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees incurred during the retrial because of defendant’s continued infringement after the original verdict, because of defendant’s repeated attempts to stay the litigation after adverse rulings from the court, and because of defendant improper conflict check for a consultant. |
| E.D. Tex. | Opal Run LLC v. C & A Marketing, Inc., 2-16-cv-00024 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2017) | Defendant is entitled to fees after plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal because plaintiff’s behavior suggested it filed the suit to extract settlements with no intent of testing the merits; plaintiff filed 20 suits on the same day concerning the same patent. |
| E.D. Tex. | My Health, Inc. v. ALR Technologies, Inc., 2-16-cv-00535 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2017) | Defendant is entitled to fees because by the time plaintiff filed suit it was clear that its claims were directed to an abstract idea, and because plaintiff filed and settled many suits, suggesting that the suits were filed to extract settlements and not to test the merits of the claims. |
| E.D. Tex. | Elbit Systems Land and C4I Ltd. et al v. Hughes Network Systems LLC et al, 2-15-cv-00037 (E.D. Tex. April 23, 2018) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because defendant argued rejected claim construction positions at trial, and because defendant ignored the court’s orders in discovery in a way that increased costs for both sides and the burden on the court. |
| S.D. Tex. | David Netzer Consulting Engineer, LLC v. Shell Oil Company et al, 3-18-cv-00075 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 28, 2018) | Defendant is entitled to fees following res judicata dismissal because plaintiff litigated, appealed, and lost the case three times, and was unreasonable throughout. |
| E.D. Tex. | Tinnus Enterprises, LLC et al v. Telebrands Corporation, 6-16-cv-00033 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2019) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because defendant’s litigation conduct was unreasonable and because of the jury finding of willfulness. Defendant’s motion practice was excessive and seemingly conducted to burden plaintiff and cause delay. |
| N.D. Tex. | Ford Global Technologies, LLC v. New World International Inc. et al, 3-17-cv-03201 (N.D. Tex. April 9, 2019) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because the jury found willful infringement and because defendant’s conduct was unreasonable. Defendants altered sales record to conceal infringement, produced inaccurate sales records during discovery, and filed multiple excessive motions. |
| N.D. Tex. | IN RE: Industrial Print Technologies, LLC, Patent Litigation, 3-15-md-02614 (N.D. Tex. Jul. 10, 2019) | Defendant is entitled to fees following stipulation of dismissal because of plaintiff’s decision to continue litigating and to seek discovery against those defendants it knew or should’ve known did not infringe. |
| E.D. Tex. | Optis Wireless Technology, LLC et al v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. et al, 2-17-cv-00123 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2019) | Declaratory plaintiff is entitled to fees because declaratory defendant used a maneuver calculated to divest the Court of jurisdiction to hear certain claims and at the same time deprive declaratory plaintiff the opportunity to pursue its declaratory claim that it had complied with its FRAND obligation. |
| N.D. Tex. | BookIT Oy v. Bank of America Corporation et al, 3-17-cv-02577 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2019) | Defendant is entitled to fees because the meaning of a certain claim term was clear from the patent specifications and it was unreasonable for plaintiff to present a broader construction. Moreover, plaintiff prolonged the case for seven months after the court’s dispositive claim construction order. |
| SIXTH CIRCUIT | ||
| E.D. Tenn. | Radio Systems Corporation et al v. Eco Pet Solutions, Inc., 3-13-cv-00385 (E.D. Tenn. July 28, 2014) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant after the court adopted the allegations in the complaint. |
| S.D. Ohio | The Ohio Willow Wood Company v. ALPS South, LLC, 2-04-cv-01223 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 24, 2014) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s patent was found unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. |
| W.D. Tenn. | WCM Industries, Inc. v. IPS Corporation, et. al., 2-13-cv-02019 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 26, 2016) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because defendant’s post-trial conduct resulted in additional communications, briefing, and hearings; defendant withheld critical information. |
| S.D. Ohio | In Re: Bill of Lading Transmission and Processing System Patent Litigation, 1-09-md-02050 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 28, 2016) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff shouldn’t have brought its contributory infringement claims, because plaintiff brought suit despite being on notice that the patent was likely invalid, because plaintiff lost on almost every legal and factual issue, and because plaintiff violated the court’s discovery order. |
| S.D. Ohio | In Re: Bill of Lading Transmission and Processing System Patent Litigation, 1-09-md-02050 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 24, 2017) | Defendant is entitled to fees because evidence shows that plaintiff brought suit to go obtain information on defendant’s operations and proprietary customer lists for the purpose of developing infringement claims against defendant’s customers. |
| W.D. Mich. | Stryker Corporation, et. al. v. Zimmer Inc., et. al., 1-10-cv-01223 (W.D. Mich. July 12, 2017) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because defendant willfully infringed the patent and because the case was not close. |
| E.D. Tenn. | Technology for Energy Corporation v. Hardy et al (JRG3), 3-16-cv-00091 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 15, 2018) | Declaratory judgment defendant is entitled to fees because declaratory plaintiff should have known that its claims seeking declaration of invalidity and unenforceability lacked substantive and legal merit, and should not have aggressively litigated the issues. |
| SEVENTH CIRCUIT | ||
| N.D. Ill. | Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. Sharp Corporation et al, 1-10-cv-06763 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2014) | Defendant is entitled to fees because of the inequitable conduct finding against plaintiff. |
| N.D. Ill. | Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated v. International Securities Exchange, LLC, 1-07-cv-00623 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 10, 2014) | Declaratory judgment plaintiff is entitled to fees because declaratory defendant should’ve known that it could not prove infringement, and should have “fold[ed] its tent,” instead of wasting the court’s and parties’ time and resources. |
| N.D. Ill. | In Re: People’s United Bank, National Association, 1-12-cv-06286 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 1, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff did not join the patent owner to the lawsuit from the start, leading to filed motions that could’ve been avoided. |
| N.D. Ill. | Atlas IP, LLC v. Exelon Corporation et al, 1-15-cv-10746 (N.D. Ill. Jul 22, 2016) | Defendant is entitled to fees because the evidence shows that plaintiff filed the action without adequate investigation, and because plaintiff’s ultimate theory was meritless. |
| N.D. Ill. | R-Boc Representatives, Inc. v. Minemyer, 1-11-cv-08433 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 10, 2017) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because defendant willfully violated a permanent injunction, and the evidence did not show that defendant undertook a redesign as it claimed. |
| N.D. Ill. | The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co., Ltd. et al, 1-16-cv-06097 (N.D. Ill. May 23, 2018) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because the jury found willful infringement, and because of defendant’s conduct, mainly its efforts to circumvent the preliminary injunction. |
| S.D. Ind. | GS Cleantech Corporation v. Cardinal Ethanol, LLC, 1-10-cv-00180 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 18, 2018) | Defendant is entitled to fees because of the inequitable conduct finding and because of plaintiff’s litigation conduct, such as offering witness testimony with questionable veracity. |
| EIGHT CIRCUIT | ||
| D. Minn. | Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Octane Fitness, LLC et al, 0-09-cv-00319 (D. Minn. July 1, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s claims were exceptionally weak in light of the patent, prosecution history, inventor testimony, and expert testimony; and because the evidence showed that plaintiff used tactics to accelerate defendant’s litigation costs to force settlement. |
| D. Minn. | Johnny Rhymes with Connie, LLC v. Giftland Works, LLC, 0-16-cv-00440 (D. Minn. June 8, 2016) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because defendant blatantly infringed plaintiff’s design patent, including after receiving notice of the patent. |
| D. Minn. | Hydreon Corporation v. JC Brothers, Inc., 0-15-cv-01917 (D. Minn. Nov. 18, 2016) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because, taking the complaint as true, defendant willfully infringed plaintiff’s patents and trademarks, concealed its actions, and failed to respond to the lawsuit. |
| W.D. Ark. | Haingaertner et al v. Zhejiang Sunshine Leisure Products Co., Ltd., 5-17-cv-05080 (W.D. Ark. Sep. 18, 2018) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because of the finding of willful infringement, because defendant chose not to defend the suit and instead to continue to sell the accused products, and because plaintiff’s legal position is quite strong. |
| D. Minn. | Core Distribution, Inc. v. Yaheetech under Seller ID 20522203305 on Amazon.com et al, 0-16-cv-04059 (D. Minn. Nov. 27, 2018) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because defendant failed to appear in the action despite receiving notice of the suit. |
| D.N.D. | Energy Heating, LLC et al v. Heat On-The-Fly, LLC et al, 4-13-cv-00010 (D.N.D. July 2, 2019) | Magistrate Judge recommends that plaintiff is entitled to fees because of defendant’s inequitable conduct. The jury found affirmative wrongful acts by defendant. And defendant’s litigated the case unreasonably by persisting in its positions. |
| D.S.D. | Kustom Cycles, Inc. d/b/a Klock Werks Kustom Cycles et al v. Dragonfly Cycle Concepts, LLC et al, 5-18-cv-05024 (D.S.D. July 9, 2019) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because defendant refused to appear and defend the design patent infringement action. |
| NINTH CIRCUIT | ||
| D. Nev. | Home Gambling Network, Inc., et. al. v. Chris Piche, et. al., 2-05-cv-00610 (D. Nev. May 21, 2014) | Defendant is entitled to fees defendant operated in Costa Rica, so plaintiff should’ve know that defendant could not be liable; moreover the court found patent misuse by the plaintiff, and found that prosecution history disclaimer barred some of plaintiff’s claims. |
| C.D. Cal. | Action Star Enterprise, Co. Ltd. v. KaiJet Technology International, Limited, et. al., 2-12-cv-08074 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2014) | Defendant is entitled to fees because of plaintiff’s failure to produce certain videos supporting its infringement contentions in response to discovery requests. |
| W.D. Wash. | Medtrica Solutions Ltd. v. Cygnus Medical LLC, 2-12-cv-00538 (W.D. Wash. July 10, 2014) | Declaratory judgment plaintiff is entitled to fees because declaratory defendant’s infringement counterclaims had little supporting evidence on summary judgment. |
| D. Ariz. | Integrated Technology Corporation v. Rudolph Technologies, Inc., et al., 2-06-cv-02182 (D. Ariz. Aug. 8, 2014) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because defendant hid its infringement for years, provided false discovery responses, and held substantively weak positions throughout the litigation. |
| N.D. Cal. | Kilopass Technology, Inc. v. Sidense Corporation, 3-10-cv-02066 (N.D. Cal. Aug 12, 2014) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff asserted baseless infringement claims, had an inadequate presuit investigation, and attempted to argue different positions in court and at the USPTO. |
| N.D. Cal. | Yufa v. TSI Incorporated, 4-09-cv-01315 (N.D. Cal. Aug 14, 2014) | Defendant is entitled to fees because pro se plaintiff continued litigation, relying solely on conclusory allegations of infringement, in light of the substantial and uncontroverted evidence that the accused product didn’t infringe. |
| C.D. Cal. | Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. Superstar International Inc. et al, 2-13-cv-00566 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2014) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because plaintiff pled willful infringement and because defendant failed to participate in discovery. |
| D. Nev. | Rubbermaid Commercial Products LLC v. Trust Commercial Products et al, 2-13-cv-02144 (D. Nev. Aug. 22, 2014) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because plaintiff pled willful infringement. |
| N.D. Cal. | IPVX Patent Holdings, Inc. v. Voxernet LLC, 5-13-cv-01708 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2014) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff failed to develop evidence supporting its literal infringement and DOE arguments, and persisted through claim construction and summary judgment; because plaintiff didn’t show it performed a presuit investigation; and because plaintiff filed dozens of suits but wasn’t willing to invest resources to prove infringement. |
| N.D. Cal. | Logic Devices Incorporated v. Apple, Inc, 3-13-cv-02943 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2014) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff misrepresented information, asserted validity positions unsupported by the record, and took zero depositions and little discovery. |
| S.D. Cal. | RawCar Group, LLC v. Grace Medical, Inc. et al, 3-13-cv-01105 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2014) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because the jury found willfulness, and because of defendant’s litigation conduct. |
| C.D. Cal. | Forever Foundations & Frame, LLC et al v. Optional Products, LLC, 8-13-cv-01779 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2014) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because the infringement was willful. |
| C.D. Cal. | Cambrian Science Corporation v. Cox Communications Inc., et. al., 8-11-cv-01011 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s litigation position after claim construction was unreasonable as to two products; and because plaintiff requested broad and burdensome discovery against a party without planning to use it at trial, using discovery to harass the party into settlement. |
| N.D. Cal. | Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Systems Incorporated, et. al., 4-12-cv-01971 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees following a jury trial because plaintiff failed to produce material documents during discovery, and because plaintiff didn’t alert defendant as to its inventor’s change of position as to inventorship at trial. |
| C.D. Cal. | Universal Electronics Inc. v. Universal Remote Control Inc., 8-12-cv-00329 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because evidence showed plaintiff brought suit for an improper motive, and that plaintiff should’ve known it hadn’t complied with the marking statute; and because of plaintiff’s long delay in bringing the action re: one patent. |
| W.D. Wash. | UltimatePointer, L.L.C. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al, 2-14-cv-00865 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 11, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s inadequate pre-filing investigation; plaintiff accused 1900 of defendant’s products as infringing, but substantiated the accusations only as to 200 products. |
| W.D. Wash. | Medtrica Solutions Ltd. v. Cygnus Medical LLC, 2-12-cv-00538 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 31, 2015) | Counterclaim defendant is entitled to fees because counterclaim plaintiff lacked sufficient evidence to support its case after the court’s claim construction. |
| C.D. Cal. | Dzinesquare, Inc. v. Armano Luxury Alloys, Inc. et al, 2-14-cv-01918 (C.D. Cal. April 1, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees after summary judgment of invalidity because no reasonable litigant could’ve reasonably expected success on plaintiff’s infringement claim. |
| D. Nev. | Aevoe Corp. v. AE Tech Co., Ltd., et. al., 2-12-cv-00053 (D. Nev. April 20, 2015) | Magistrate Judge recommends that plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because of the claim of willful infringement, because of sanctions for defendant’s failure to comply with the court’s orders, and because of the finding that defendant was in contempt for violating the preliminary injunction order. |
| N.D. Cal. | Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Systems Incorporated, et. al., 4-12-cv-01971 (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees for the litigation misconduct of two of plaintiff’s fact witnesses. |
| S.D. Cal. | American Calcar Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et. al., 3-06-cv-02433 (S.D. Cal. May 7, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because of plaintiff’s inequitable conduct. |
| S.D. Cal. | Deep Sky Software, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 3-10-cv-01234 (S.D. Cal. June 1, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff failed to disclose in a reexamination proceeding prior art later determined to be invalidating. |
| N.D. Cal. | Alzheimer’s Institute of America v. Elan Corporation PLC, et. al., 3-10-cv-00482 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because a court in a related case found, in a reasoned opinion, that the defendant was entitled to fees. |
| C.D. Cal. | Aleksandr L Yufa v. TSI Incorporated, et. al., 8-12-cv-01614 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees against pro se plaintiff because plaintiff filed suit without testing the accused products, and because plaintiff continued the suit, relying on conclusory allegations, after evidence that defendant’s product did not infringe. |
| C.D. Cal. | Large Audience Display Systems, LLC v. Tennman Productions, LLC, et. al., 2-11-cv-03398 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s shell corporation was formed to create jurisdiction, and because plaintiff refused to present the USPTO with dispositive prior art in reexamination. |
| N.D. Cal. | Segan LLC v. Zynga Inc., 3-14-cv-01315 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s proposed claim construction and infringement theory were objectively baseless. |
| S.D. Cal. | Digital Empire Limited v. Compal Electronics, Inc. Group et al, 3-14-cv-01688 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees after plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal because there was no proper evidence to support the assertion that defendants were involved in the accused products. |
| C.D. Cal. | Sundesa, LLC v. Giant Sports Products, LLC, 2-15-cv-02245 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 29, 2016) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant based on the previous finding that defendant acted willfully. |
| C.D. Cal. | HeadBlade, Inc. v. Products Unlimited, LLC, 2-15-cv-02611 (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2016) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because defendant continued to advertise its alleged infringing products after suit was filed. |
| S.D. Cal. | Sonix Technology Co. Ltd v. Yoshida et al, 3-12-cv-00380 (S.D. Cal. May 23, 2016) | Declaratory judgment plaintiff is entitled to fees because declaratory defendant counsel didn’t undertake a pre-filing investigation, and asserted litigation positions that were vague, confusing and contradictory. |
| C.D. Cal. | Oakley Inc v. Moda Collection LLC, 8-16-cv-00160 (C.D. Cal. June 9, 2016) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because plaintiff alleged that defendant intentionally and willfully infringed its design patents. |
| C.D. Cal. | Kinglite Holdings Inc. v. Micro-Star International Co. Ltd. et al, 2-14-cv-03009 (C.D. Cal. June 23, 2016) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff prosecuted direct infringement, but did not verify that the accused products had particular required elements. |
| N.D. Cal. | Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc. et al, 5-13-cv-04057 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2016) | Declaratory judgment plaintiff is entitled to fees after a finding of unclean hands against declaratory defendant. |
| W.D. Wash. | Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc. et al, 2-15-cv-00522 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 3, 2016) | Declaratory judgment plaintiff is entitled to fees because declaratory defendant’s pursuit of infringement claims after the court’s Markman rulings was frivolous and unreasonable. |
| S.D. Cal. | Security5, LLC v. VSN Mobil, Inc. et al, 3-16-cv-01431 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2016) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against a defaulting defendant. |
| W.D. Wash. | Conquest Innovations, LLC v. SkyLIFE Company, Inc., 3-15-cv-05697 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 23, 2017) | Defendant is entitled to fees because no evidence showed that plaintiff attempted to obtain defendant’s allegedly infringing products pre-filing, and because plaintiff’s facts alleged in the complaint contradicted certain exhibits attached to the complaint. |
| N.D. Cal. | Technology Properties Limited, LLC v. Canon, Inc. et al, 4-14-cv-03640 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2017) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s infringement theory was meritless, and because the ITC had previously issued an opinion finding non-infringement. |
| S.D. Cal. | Thermolife International, LLC v. GNC Corporation et al, 3-13-cv-00651 (S.D. Cal. April 4, 2017) | Defendant is entitled to fees because of plaintiff’s inadequate investigation of the accused products pre-suit, and because plaintiff brought suit against many defendants and settled for small amounts. |
| C.D. Cal. | Large Audience Display Systems, LLC v. Tennman Productions, LLC, et. al., 2-11-cv-03398 (C.D. Cal. April 10, 2017) | Defendant is entitled to fees because of plaintiff’s litigation gamesmanship regarding venue, because of plaintiff’s citing to an inadvertently sent privileged protected email, and because of plaintiff’s objectively weak proposed constructions. |
| C.D. Cal. | Shipping and Transit, LLC v. Hall Enterprises, Inc., 2-16-cv-06535 (C.D. Cal. July 5, 2017) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s § 101 position was objectively unreasonable in light of Alice and its progeny, and because plaintiff filed hundreds of cases and repeatedly dismissed its own suits to evade a ruling on a the merits |
| D. Nev. | Sundesa, LLC v. 4 Dimension Nutrition Inc., 2-16-cv-02529 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2017) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because of plaintiff’s allegations that defendant willfully infringed and continued to willfully infringe. |
| N.D. Cal. | Max Sound Corporation et al v. Google Inc. et al, 5-14-cv-04412 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2017) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s position that it had standing to assert the patent was exceptionally weak, and because plaintiff brought suit without performing sufficient due diligence as to whether it had standing. |
| N.D. Cal. | govino, LLC v. WhitePoles LLC d/b/a Vintout et al, 4-16-cv-06981 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2017) | Magistrate Judge recommends that plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because of defendant’s willful infringement and failure to participate. |
| C.D. Cal. | Joimax, Inc v. Surgical Orthopedic Implants, Inc. d/b/a MaxSpine, 8-17-cv-00979 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2017) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because of defendant’s willful infringement. |
| C.D. Cal. | Sigma Enterprises, LLC v. Alluring Deals LLC d/b/a KTB Cosmetics et al, 8-17-cv-01074 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2017) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because of the substantial evidence of defendant’s egregious infringement. |
| C.D. Cal. | Drop Stop LLC v. Jian Qing Zhu et al, 2-16-cv-07916 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2018) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because defendant failed to obtain of formal opinion of counsel regarding noninfringement, and engaged in misconduct pre-litigation and during litigation. |
| N.D. Cal. | Lyda v. CBS Interactive, Inc., 4-16-cv-06592 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2018) | Defendant is entitled to fees because of plaintiff’s lack of pre-suit diligence that would have shown that plaintiff’s indirect infringement claim was barred by a prior litigation. |
| C.D. Cal. | Genes Industry Inc v. Custom Blinds and Components Inc, 8-15-cv-00476 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2018) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because defendant failed to supports its invalidity defenses at trial and because the jury found willfulness. |
| C.D. Cal. | Lawrence E Tannas v. Multichip Display Inc et al, 8-15-cv-00282 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2018) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because plaintiff prevailed on nearly every substantive issue on summary judgment, and because defendant engaged in litigation misconduct resulting in prolonged and unnecessary litigation, as reflected by the court’s prior orders and statements on the record. |
| N.D. Cal. | Cave Consulting Group, Inc. v. Truven Health Analytics Inc., 3-15-cv-02177 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2018) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s failure to recognize that its own prior art invalidated the patent in suit was grossly negligent. |
| C.D. Cal. | 3M Company et al v. Phoenix Automotive Refinishing Co., Ltd. et al, 5-17-cv-00649 (C.D. Cal. April 25, 2018) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because the infringement was willful. |
| C.D. Cal. | DexCom, Inc. v. AgaMatrix, Inc., 2-16-cv-05947 (C.D. Cal. May 9, 2018) | Defendant is entitled to fees after summary judgment of non-infringement because plaintiff should’ve known at the time of the claim construction order that its infringement positions were inconsistent with the words of the patent. |
| S.D. Cal. | IPS Group, Inc. v. Duncan Solutions, Inc., 3-15-cv-01526 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2018) | Defendant is entitled to fees after summary judgment of non-infringement because plaintiff asserted and continued to litigate a frivolous case of infringement as to one patent. |
| C.D. Cal. | Mangalindan v. TBL International, Inc. d/b/a Yofit et al, 8-17-cv-01505 (C.D. Cal. May 22, 2018 | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because the infringement was willful. |
| C.D. Cal. | Spitz Technologies Corporation v. Nobel Biocare USA, LLC et al, 8-17-cv-00660 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 7, 2018) | Defendant is entitled to fees after summary judgment of non-infringement because plaintiff’s infringement case became objectively baseless after the claim construction order. |
| N.D. Cal. | UCP International Co., Ltd. et al v. Balsam Brands Inc. et al, 3-16-cv-07255 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 12, 2018) | Declaratory plaintiff is entitled to fees after summary judgment of non-infringement because declaratory defendant acted in an unreasonable manner in hiring certain counsel and seeking recusal. |
| N.D. Cal. | Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 4-17-cv-05928 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2018) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff filed its complaint in the face of significant post-Alice precedent. |
| W.D. Wash. | Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc. et al, 2-15-cv-00522 (W.D. Wash. July 13, 2018) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because defendant’s actions regarding the invalidity defense of obviousness at trial were not made in good faith. |
| C.D. Cal. | Sugarfina, Inc. v. Sweitzer LLC et al, 2-17-cv-07950 (C.D. Cal. July 30, 2018) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because the infringement was willful, and because defendant continued to infringe despite the court’s order. |
| N.D. Cal. | Phigenix, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 5-15-cv-01238 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2018) | Defendant is entitled to fees after summary judgment of non-infringement because of plaintiff’s shoddy pre-suit investigation, its continued aggressive prosecution of the case after the Court’s priority date determination, and its undisclosed change in its infringement theory after the ruling on the first summary judgment motion. |
| W.D. Wash. | Progressive International Corporation v. AMGTM LLC, 2-17-cv-00448 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 21, 2018) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because defendant knew about the patent for years, continued to sell its infringing product, and failed to participate in the litigation in good faith. |
| C.D. Cal. | Blackbird Tech LLC v. Health In Motion LLC et al, 2-17-cv-03488 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 10, 2018) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff raised flawed claim construction and infringement contentions, made multiple settlement offers below the anticipated costs of defense, and delayed during discovery. |
| D. Nev. | Bird-B-Gone, Inc. v. Haierc Industry Co., Ltd., 2-18-cv-00819 (D. Nev. Sep. 28, 2018) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because of plaintiff’s allegations of willfulness and defendant’s refusal to participate in the action despite receiving notice. |
| N.D. Cal. | Finisar Corporation v. Gigalight (USA) Corp. et al, 3-18-cv-01077 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2018) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because defendant ignored plaintiff’s infringement claims and continued selling the accused product even after the entry of default, because of defendant’s failure to participate in the lawsuit, and because of defendant’s attempts to avoid liability through deception. |
| N.D. Cal. | Fitness Anywhere LLC v. Woss Enterprises, LLC, 5-14-cv-01725 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2018) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because defendant filed numerous duplicative motions, attempting to relitigate several issues. |
| C.D. Cal. | Munchkin Inc v. Luv N’ Care Ltd et al, 2-13-cv-06787 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2018) | Defendant is entitled to fees following invalidation in an IPR because plaintiff persisted in litigation despite certain invalidating prior art patents and failed to explore settlement before or after the IPR decision. |
| N.D. Cal. | Robern, Inc. v. Shine Bathrooms, Inc., 3-16-cv-00133 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2019) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because most of the factors relevant to enhanced damages, including those related to willfulness, weighed heavily against defendant. |
| S.D. Cal. | Spectrum Laboratories, LLC, v. Dr. Greens, Inc., 3-11-cv-00638 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2019) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because of the jury finding of willfulness and because defendant’s litigation tactics were exceptional. Defendant avoided discovery, delayed litigation, and filed meritless motions. |
| C.D. Cal. | Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. et al v. Body Wise International, Inc., 8-18-cv-02076 (C.D. Cal. April 10, 2019) | Plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees against defaulting defendant because of the allegations in the complaint and defendant’s failure to defend the lawsuit. |
| C.D. Cal. | Kindred Studio Illustration and Design, LLC d/b/a True Grit Texture Supply v. Electronic Communication Technology, LLC a/k/a Eclipse IP, LLC, 2-18-cv-07661 (C.D. Cal. May 23, 2019) | Declaratory judgment plaintiff is entitled to fees following a covenant not to sue and a stipulation of dismissal because declaratory defendant’s infringement contentions were unreasonable, and because DJ defendant was an NPE that went after an unsophisticated party to strongarm a quick settlement. |
| C.D. Cal. | Top Lighting Corporation v. Linco Inc., 5-15-cv-01589 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2019) | Declaratory judgment defendant is entitled to fees because of declaratory plaintiff’s willfulness, its failure to respond to discovery, and its unreasonable damages position. |
| C.D. Cal. | SKC Kolon PI, Inc. v. Kaneka Corporation, 2-16-cv-05948 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2019) | Declaratory plaintiff is entitled to fees following summary judgment of noninfringement because declaratory defendant maintained infringement allegations without supporting evidence as to some accused products. |
| N.D. Cal. | Big Baboon, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc. et al, 4-17-cv-02082 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2019) | Defendant is entitled to fees following summary judgment of invaldity because defendant provided plaintiff with documents showing invalidity before the suit was filed, and plaintiff nonetheless took untenable positions, requiring defendant to waste resources. Moreover plaintiff filed serial lawsuits on the same patent, each lawsuit ending with the asserted claims rendered invalid. |
| S.D. Cal. | Spectrum Laboratories, LLC, v. Dr. Greens, Inc., 3-11-cv-00638 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees following jury verdict because defendant’s tactics of delay and avoidance relating to discovery increased litigation costs. |
| N.D. Cal. | Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 3-16-cv-03463 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2019) | Defendant is entitled to fees following summary judgment of noninfringement because plaintiff pursued an objectively baseless infringement theory by attempting to take different positions than those made to preserve validity at the Federal Circuit. |
| N.D. Cal. | Technical LED Intellectual Property, LLC v. Aeon Labs LLC, 3-18-cv-01847 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2019) | Magistrate Judge recommends that plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because of defendant’s willful infringement and deliberate behavior in failing to appear in this action. |
| TENTH CIRCUIT | ||
| D. Colo. | Brilliant Optical Solutions, LLC v. Comcast Corporation, 1-13-cv-00886 (D. Colo. Mar. 27, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because some of plaintiff’s asserted claims fell under a license when the complaint was filed. |
| D. Utah | Orbit Irrigation Products v. Sunhills International, 1-10-cv-00113 (D. Utah Nov. 30, 2015) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because of defendant’s misconduct, which resulted in sanctions. |
| D. Colo. | Bovino v. Levenger Company, 1-14-cv-00122 (D. Colo. April 21, 2016) | Defendant is entitled to fees after plaintiff’s post-Markman voluntary dismissal because plaintiff initiated and continued the litigation despite that defendant’s product did not have a required element; and because of plaintiff’s mistatements regarding its knowledge of certain prior art. |
| W.D. Okla. | Alzheimer’s Institute of America v. Comentis, Inc., 5-09-cv-01366 (W.D. Okla. April 24, 2017) | Defendant is entitled to fees because a court in a related case found plaintiff’s case exceptional and the issue is identical. |
| D. Colo. | Sentegra, LLC v. Azend Group Corp., 1-16-cv-00263 (D. Colo. June 26, 2017) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because the infringement was willful, and because defendant continued to sell infringing products after the lawsuit started. |
| D. Utah | 3Form v. Lumicor, Inc., 2-12-cv-00293 (D. Utah Sep. 28, 2018) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s infringement position was objectively unreasonable, and the infringement allegations were made without an adequate investigation into how the accused products were made. |
| D. Colo. | Hunter Douglas Inc. v. Great Lake Woods, Inc. et al, 1-15-cv-00106 (D. Colo. Mar. 27, 2019) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because defendant’s pursuit of noninfringement and invalidity counterclaims was unreasonable. Seemingly, the overall strategy was to force plaintiff to expend large amounts of money in a lengthy and protracted litigation. |
| D. Colo. | Sterisil, Inc. v. ProEdge Dental Products, Inc. et al, 1-13-cv-01210 (D. Colo. Mar. 29, 2019) | Defendant is entiled to fees because plaintiff’s litigation positions and tactics were unreasonable after defendant filed the second summary judgment motion. Following that motion, plaintiff could no longer show a litigation position with significant substantive strength. |
| D. Colo. | Andersen Manufacturing Inc. v. Wyers Products Group, Inc., 1-18-cv-00235 (D. Colo. Aug. 23, 2019) | Defendant is entitled to fees following summary judgment because of plaintiff’s unreasonable position regarding a claim limitation, because of plaintiff’s convenient position shifting during the lawsuit, and for making filings for the purposes of unnecessarily delaying the lawsuit. |
| ELEVENTH CIRCUIT | ||
| S.D. Fla. | Ultimate Combustion Co., Inc. v. Fuecotech, Inc. et al, 0-12-cv-60545 (S.D. Fla. June 3, 2014) | Magistrate Judge recommends that plaintiff is entitled to fees because defendant concealed its infringing activities, and because of defendant’s misconduct during claim construction. |
| S.D. Fla. | Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. v. Life360, Inc., 9-14-cv-80651 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees following a jury verdict of noninfringement because the accused product could not perform the asserted method claim, and because the suit seemed designed to extract a settlement based on the high cost of litigation instead of the merits. |
| S.D. Fla. | Flexiteek Americas, Inc., et. al. v. Plasteak, Inc., et. al., 0-12-cv-60215 (S. D. Fla. Feb. 4, 2016) | Magistrate Judge recommends that defendant is entitled to fees because defendant’s products could not meet the court’s definitions in its claim construction order. |
| M.D. Ala. | Hunter’s Edge, LLC v. Primos, Inc. (MAG+), 1-14-cv-00249 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 6, 2016) | Magistrate Judge recommends that defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s design patent infringement positions were baseless, and there’s no evidence that plaintiff undertook a pre-suit infringement investigation |
| M.D. Fla. | Omega Patents, LLC v. Calamp Corp., 6-13-cv-01950 (M.D. Fla. April 5, 2017) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because defendant willfully infringed the patent, as found by the jury. |
| S.D. Fla. | Unilin Beheer BV et al v. US Wood Flooring, Inc. et al, 0-17-cv-60107 (S.D. Fla. June 22, 2017) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because plaintiff pled willful infringement and defendant didn’t answer. |
| S.D. Fla. | Shipping and Transit, LLC v. LensDiscounters.com, 9-16-cv-80980 (S.D. Fla. July 11, 2017) | Magistrate Judge recommends that defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff filed hundreds of cases and avoided the merits by routinely filing covenants not to sue, which suggested a strategy of extracting nuisance settlements. |
| S.D. Fla. | Shipping and Transit, LLC v. 1A Auto, Inc., 9-16-cv-81039 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2017) | Magistrate Judge recommends that defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s litigation positions were objectively unreasonable in light of Alice, because of plaintiff’s inadequate presuit investigation, and because plaintiff has filed hundreds of suit nationwide, routinely avoiding a ruling on the validity of the patents, instead seeking to extract nuisance settlements. |
| D.C. CIRCUIT | ||
| D.D.C. | Intex Recreation Corporation v. Team Worldwide Corporation, 1-04-cv-01785 (D.D.C. Jan. 9, 2015) | Declaratory judgment plaintiff is entitled to fees because declaratory defendant continued to litigate despite that the accused products could not infringe under the court’s claim construction. |
Usually, backward torsions involve a generic cialis overnight lifting incident, during which the body produces chemicals that make the penile arteries relax. Natural remedies are considered the best form of medication today throughout the levitra prescription globe and doctors are highly serious about the side effects of many allopathic medicines healing the premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunctions. Most men who experience ED due to physical causes also experience psychological symptoms such as stress, anxiety, guilt, depression, fear of sexual failure and low self esteem can be major factors leading to erectile dysfunction. cialis australia mastercard Dose: Take this prescription as proscribed by your spe 20mg tadalafil salet, takes as required.