Tracking the landscape of patent remedies
 
Federal Circuit lists non-exclusive factors to consider when assessing exceptionality under §285

Federal Circuit lists non-exclusive factors to consider when assessing exceptionality under §285

University of Utah v. Max Planck was decided on March 23, 2017 on appeal from the District of Massachusetts. There, the district court granted defendant Max Planck’s motions for summary judgment regarding the joint inventorship claims. The district court then denied Max Planck’s motion for attorney fees despite that plaintiff University of Utah had “little factual support” for its inventorship argument, and that its damages request was high. Max Planck appealed.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of attorney fees.

Under Octane Fitness, “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). All aspects of a district court’s attorney fee determination under § 285 is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

District courts have discretion to make exceptional case determinations on a case-by-case basis, considering the totality of the circumstances. Some “non-exclusive factors” that may support a finding of exceptionality include: subjective bad faith, exceptionally meritless claims, frivolessness, motivation, objective unreasonableness of a case’s factual or legal components, and the need to advance considerations of compensation and deterrence. The district court here made no finding that any of these factors applied.

Additionally, the district court provided a “thorough explanation for why it did not find this case to be exceptional.” The University’s claim was based on a valid interpretation of Federal Circuit law; and the University withdrew its weak sole inventorship argument before summary judgment. Such findings were sufficient under Octane Fitness. Rather than providing any set formula to dictate the district court’s attorney fee inquiry, Octane Fitness “provides several suggestions that might guide a district court’s discretionary decision.” Here, the district court explained why [the University’s] position did not stand out from other patent cases, and Octane Fitness does not require anything more.”

 

Univ. of Utah v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur Foerderung der Wissenschaften e.V., 851 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Some antidepressant medications might lead to cialis overnight no prescription erectile Dysfunction. According to health experts, strong tadalafil generic cialis muscles are vital for pregnancy to occur. But, some males are unable to achieve sufficient stiffness of the male organ to penetrate into her genital passage and offer memorable sexual cost cialis pleasure. OK Then Why Not Underscores? Basically the search engines are not just a powerful force – for many they are the sole gatekeepers of the Internet. generic cialis online