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
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
Nearly six years ago, the Supreme Court in Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness promulgated a “totality of the circumstances test” for awarding reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in exceptional cases under 35...more
On April 25, 2019, in Int’l Designs Corp., LLC, et. al. v. Hair Art Int’l, Inc., Judge George H. Wu in the Central District of California denied Hair Art’s motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Judge Wu concluded...more
A recent opinion from the District of New Jersey is a cautionary tale for patent practitioners regarding conduct during patent prosecution that can be framed as bad faith. This can become an expensive misstep during...more
Generally, courts will not scrutinize the business decisions of litigants. Concerns arise, however, when such decisions are improperly made for the purposes of abusing the judicial process. One business decision that has...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