When faced with an instituted IPR, the Patent Owner should include all arguments it wishes to preserve for appeal in its Patent Owner Response (“POR”), including arguments that the Patent Owner believes are unlikely to...more
In Network-1 Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard, No. 18-2338, the Federal Circuit reversed and vacated multiple aspects of the district court’s final judgment holding that Hewlett-Packard (HP) did not infringe U.S. Patent No....more
On April 25, 2019, in Int’l Designs Corp., LLC, et. al. v. Hair Art Int’l, Inc., Judge George H. Wu in the Central District of California denied Hair Art’s motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Judge Wu concluded...more
5/9/2019
/ Attorney's Fees ,
Claim Construction ,
Exceptional Case ,
Frivolous Lawsuits ,
Octane Fitness v. ICON ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Section 285 ,
Summary Judgment ,
Totality of Circumstances Test