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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions KANNUU PTY LTD. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. [OPINION] (2021-1638, 10/7/21) (Newman, Prost, Chen) - Chen, J. Denying motion for preliminary injunction. Patentee sought to compel...more
Since the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., district courts have had expanded discretion to award prevailing party attorney’s fees in “exceptional cases” under the Patent...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
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
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