News & Analysis as of

Attorney's Fees 35 U.S.C. § 285

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

The Federal Circuit Interprets the Application of 35 USC § 285 and Attorney’s Fees

In Dragon Intellectual Property LLC v. Dish Network L.L.C. No. 22-1621 (Fed. Cir. May 20, 2024), the Federal Circuit clarifies the standard for “exceptional” cases under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The case concerns attorneys’ fees and...more

Whitcomb Selinsky, PC

Hyper Bicycles, Inc. Awarded Attorney Fees in Patent Infringement Case

Whitcomb Selinsky, PC on

This Patent Law case involves a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Fa-Hsing Lu against Hyper Bicycles, Inc. regarding two design patents Lu holds for the ornamental design of a bicycle. In a prior ruling, the court...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

OneSubsea IP UK Ltd. v. FMC Tech., Inc., No. 22-1099 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2023)

This case addresses the proper standard for an appeal of a discretionary decision by a successor judge as well as requests for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and certain circumstances that do not make a case...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Watch: Federal Circuit rejects invitation to abandon abuse-of-discretion standard of review in attorneys’...

WilmerHale on

Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - ONESUBSEA IP UK LIMITED v. FMC TECHNOLOGIES, INC. [OPINION] (2022-1099, 5/23/2023) (Moore, Clevenger, and Dyk) - Clevenger, J. The Court affirmed a district court decision...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Federal Circuitry

Last Week In The Federal Circuit (July 25-29): Following The Letter But Not The Spirit Of The Rules

Sometimes just because the rules permit something doesn’t mean doing it is a good idea. As our latest case-of-the-week shows, the result could be an award of attorney fees. Case of the week: Realtime Adaptive Streaming...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Voluntary Nature of IPR Proceedings Forecloses Attorney’s Fees, According to District Court

A district court recently denied a motion for attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 where the defendant successfully invalidated each claim of the patent at issue during an inter partes review proceeding. The district court...more

Fish & Richardson

Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Round-Up - March 2022

Fish & Richardson on

This post summarizes two recent Eastern District of Texas opinions regarding the award of attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. AT&T, Inc. et al, 2-17-cv-00718 (EDTX Mar. 29, 2022) (Roy S....more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

2021 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends: Interplay Between PTAB Proceedings and Recovery in District Court

In 2021, district courts were faced with resolving numerous requests by parties seeking attorney fees based on conduct in related USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings. Many of these requests came in the wake...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

2021 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends

[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...more

McDermott Will & Emery

This Case Is Both Hot and Exceptional—Attorneys’ Fees and Inequitable Conduct

McDermott Will & Emery on

In a second visit to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, after the Court affirmed a finding of unenforceability due to inequitable conduct based on “bad faith” non-disclosure of statutory bar prior sales on the...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Federal Circuitry

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (October 18-22): Inequitable Conduct = Attorneys’ Fees?

After a couple of weeks with lots of precedential decisions, the Federal Circuit caught its breath last week and issued only non-precedential ones (with the possible exception of a sealed opinion that may or may not be...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

No Pleading, No Problem: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss and Bifurcates Willful Infringement Determination, in Absence of...

Recently in Nike, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., 2:17-cv-08509 (C.D. Cal.) (October 26, 2020), the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted-in-part and denied-in-part Defendant, Skechers U.S.A.,...more

Jones Day

American Rule Applied to PTAB Attorney’s Fees

Jones Day on

In Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Almirall, LLC, the Federal Circuit recently found 35 U.S.C. § 285 did not authorize the Court awarding attorney’s fees for conduct occurring at the PTAB. No. 2020-1106, 2020 WL 2961939, at *2...more

13 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide