Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - SANHO CORP. v. KAIJET TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, INC. [OPINION] (2023-1336, 7/31/24) (Dyk, Clevenger, Stoll) - Dyk, J. The Court affirmed the Board’s decision...more
Acuitas Therapeutics Inc. (“Acuitas”) filed a complaint (1-24-cv-00816) on July 12 against Alnylam Pharmaceutical Inc. (“Alnylam”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging incorrect inventorship of...more
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
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
March's Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up covers decisions addressing post-verdict JMOL, the point at which cases become exceptional, and the standard for amending invalidity contentions, among other issues....more
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
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
[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
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a couple of weeks with lots of precedential decisions, the Federal Circuit caught its breath last week and issued only non-precedential ones (with the possible exception of a sealed opinion that may or may not be...more
On December 10, 2020, United States District Judge Ronnie Abrams (S.D.N.Y.) granted Oath Inc. (“Oath”) and Quora, Inc. (“Quora”)’s motions for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Section 285 permits courts to award...more
Although infrequently awarded, district courts are empowered to issue sanctions for behavior at the PTAB that they deem “exceptional” under Octane Fitness. In Game and Technology Co., Ltd. v. Wargaming Group Limited,...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
Specification’s Narrow Description of the Invention Results in Disavowal of Claim Scope - In Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd. v. ITC., Appeal No. 18-2191, the consistent description in the specification of a particular...more
EKO BRANDS, LLC V. ADRIAN RIVERA MAYNEZ ENTERPRISES, INC. ET. AL. Before Dyk, Reyna, and Hughes. Reyna dissenting in part. Appeal from the Western District of Washington...more
The Federal Circuit affirmed a district court award of over $360,000 in costs and attorneys’ fees against a non-practicing entity, citing the need “to deter future abusive litigation.” In October 2016, Blackbird sued...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
A weekly summary of the precedential patent-related opinions issued by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the opinions designated precedential or informative by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board....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
A magistrate judge determined that a prevailing party in a district court litigation could be entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees based solely on conduct during an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. In September...more
Inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings often arise in the context of high-stakes patent infringement litigation, and district courts frequently stay litigation pending parallel IPRs, which may fully resolve a...more
The federal patent laws provide for an award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in exceptional patent infringement cases. 35 U.S.C. §285. An exceptional case is determined based on the totality of the circumstances....more