The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a district court decision awarding attorneys’ fees, finding that the district court abused its discretion by failing to properly explain its basis for the...more
Realtime Adaptive Streaming L.L.C. v. Sling TV, L.L.C., Appeal No. 2023-1035 (Fed. Cir. August 23, 2024) In its only precedential patent decision this week, the Federal Circuit helped clarify which facts may be...more
In re PersonalWeb Technologies LLC, Appeals Nos. 2021-1858, -1859, -1860 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 3, 2023) In this appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the question before the...more
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
The Federal Circuit passed on Pure Hemp’s ask for attorney fees and sanctions in United Cannabis, Corp. v. Pure Hemp Collective Inc., No. 22-1363 (Fed. Cir. May 8, 2023). Agreeing with the district court, the appellate panel...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the rejection of attorney fees, finding that neither inequitable conduct nor a conflict of interest rendered the case exceptional given the limited factual record...more
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
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed an award of attorneys’ fees against a plaintiff and his counsel, and further granted defendants’ motion for appellate attorneys’ fees and double costs where plaintiff...more
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - VIDSTREAM LLC v. TWITTER, INC. [OPINION] (2019-1734, 2019-1735, 11/25/2020) (Newman, O'Malley, Taranto) - Newman, J. Affirming the decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a district court’s denial of attorney’s fees to an accused infringer, finding the district court did not properly consider the Patent Owner’s manner of...more
Let’s face it, any litigation is expensive and a defendant that finds itself spending money battling claims against it only to have those claims later dismissed by the plaintiff is likely going to want to try to recoup the...more
In Amneal Pharmacueticals LLC v. Almirall, LLC, the Federal Circuit professed to address a question it had not considered before: whether attorney's fees and a exceptional case determination was available for fees and costs...more
INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC v. TREND MICRO INCORPORATED - Before Dyk, Taranto, and Stoll. Appeal from the Delaware District Court Summary: An exceptional case finding may be based on a single isolated act, but the court...more
Addressing the issue of whether litigation costs that exceed potential damages necessarily render a case exceptional, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision that they did not....more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ motion for a new trial on damages, finding that the jury verdict on damages was based on...more
Addressing the issue of attorneys’ fees in connection with exceptional cases under 35 USC § 285, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that a case was exceptional based on...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Elbit Systems Land and C4I Ltd. v. Hughes Network Systems, LLC, Appeal No. 2018-1910 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2019) - In this appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of...more
CELLSPIN SOFT, INC. V. FITBIT, INC. ET AL. Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Summary: While not all factual allegations that are...more
In a patent owner’s declaratory judgment action under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) a Federal Circuit panel in Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1551 (Fed. Cir. May 8, 2019) narrowly...more
Addressing an award of attorneys’ fees under 35 USC § 285, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a district court finding that the case was exceptional, but found that the district court failed to articulate...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before O’Malley, Mayer, and Reyna. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: A case may be exceptional if: (1) fact witnesses are compensated based on the...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before PROST, Wallach, and Taranto. Appeal from the Southern District of Indiana. Summary: In determining whether a party’s actions were “exceptional” under Octane Fitness, the District...more
After an eight-year battle through the Federal Courts, the fight over attorneys’ fees in Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness has likely reached its end with the Federal Circuit upholding the hotly disputed $1.6 million...more
District Court Abused Discretion in Ignoring Federal Circuit Mandate to Reconsider Attorneys’ Fees Under Octane Fitness - In Adjustacam, LLC v. Newegg, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1882, the Federal Circuit held that a district...more
District Court Abused Discretion in Not Finding Case Exceptional - In Rothschild Connected Devices v. Guardian Protection Services, Appeal No. 2016-2521, the Federal Circuit held that a district court abused its discretion...more