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
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 Federal Circuit in SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 20-1685, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Sep. 28, 2021) addressed the standards for willful infringement and enhanced damages, and provided insights on litigation tactics...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
The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit officially joined its sister circuits in holding that the Supreme Court standard for awarding attorney’s fees in patent cases, set forth in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health &...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
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
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
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
A flurry of activity from various courts this past week on “exceptional cases” under Section 285 of the Patent Act provided notable guidance for practitioners and patent owners, with a particular emphasis on the motivation...more
Two weeks ago, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals limited the factors a district court may consider in determining the amount of attorneys’ fees to award in an “exceptional” patent infringement case. Lumen View Tech., LLC...more
Addressing the degree to which litigation conduct can preclude the recovery of fees under 35 U.S. C. § 285, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the denial of a fee award, finding that sloppy litigation...more
Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Octane Fitness, LLC; Checkpoint Systems, Inc. v. All-Tag Sec., S.A.; Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc. - In the span of 10 days, and in the wake of the U.S Supreme Court...more