News & Analysis as of

Exceptional Case

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

In AdjustaCam v. Newegg, the Circuit reverses the denial of attorney fees where Judge Gilstrap simply adopted a pre-Octane Fitness determination by a prior judge, despite the Circuit’s post-Octane Fitness remand of the case...more

Weak Infringement Position Makes Troll-like Behavior Exceptional

In Adjustacam LLC v. Newegg, Inc., [2016-1882] (July 5, 2017) the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s decision not to award attorneys’ fees to defendant after plaintiff voluntarily dismissing its complaint after a...more

Attempt to Set Aside Judgment Yields Exceptional Case Award

by McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees to the prevailing defendant in a suit brought in equity seeking to have a patent infringement...more

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - June 2017

by WilmerHale on

Nexlearn, LLC v. Allen Interactions, Inc. (No. 2016-2107, -2221, 6/19/17) (Moore, Schall, Hughes) Moore, J. Affirming dismissal due to lack of personal jurisdiction....more

Federal Circuit Reverses Fee Award in Case Tagged as Exceptional

While the Supreme Court’s decisions in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. and Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc. significantly relaxed the standard for awarding attorney fees under 35...more

Pumping Up Exceptional Cases Under the Octane Fitness Standard

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

Federal Circuit Concludes Differently on Two Exceptional Case Actions

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

On June 5, 2017, the Federal Circuit arrived at two different conclusions concerning whether a case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, reversing the district court in both cases. The two cases are Checkpoint Sys., Inc.,...more

Denial of Attorneys’ Fees Reversed because District Court Conflated Rule and 35 USC 285

In Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC v. Guardian Protection Services, Inc., [2016-2521] (June 5, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the determination that Appellee Rothschild Connected Devices...more

BNSF v. Tyrrell: The Other International Shoe Has Dropped

by Pepper Hamilton LLP on

The availability of any forum aside from a defendant's state of incorporation or principal place of business will require a plaintiff to carefully consider the likelihood of obtaining specific jurisdiction because there is...more

In Determining Whether a Case “Stands Out,” It was Not Improper to Consider Patent Cases Generally

In Nova Chemicals Corp. (Canada) v. Dow Chemical Co., [2016-1576] (May 11, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that the case was “exceptional” under 35 USC 285, and the award of $2.5 million...more

Octane Fitness and Highmark Decisions Turn Three

by Latham & Watkins LLP on

Both courts and litigants are only now appreciating the full impact of the Supreme Court’s 2014 decisions on fee shifting in patent cases. Key Points: ..Successful Section 285 motions have increased substantially in the...more

Exceptional Case Rulings Establish Deference to District Court’s Manifest

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the issue of whether a particular case was “exceptional” because plaintiff’s inventorship challenge failed in part because of admissions from plaintiff’s witness, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit...more

District Court Denies Motion for Exceptional Case and for Attorney's Fees after Trial

After the defendants Ingenico S.A.'s, Ingenico Corp.'s, and Ingenico Inc.'s (the "Ingenico Defendants") prevailed at trial, the defendants filed a Motion to Declare this an Exceptional Case and For Attorney's Fees Pursuant to...more

Inventorship Claims That Took $8 Million to Defeat Were Not “Exceptional”

In University of Utah v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur Foerderung der Wissenschaften E.V., [2016-1336] (March 23, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the case was not exceptional within the...more

Supreme Court and Precedential Federal Circuit Patent Cases

In SCA v. First Quality Baby Products, the Supreme Court holds that laches should not be available as a defense in patent cases, refusing to concur with the Circuit’s en banc holding that the Patent Act’s 6-year limitation on...more

Finding of Exceptionality Leaves Unsuccessful Infringement Plaintiff Liable for Over $50 Million in Attorney Fees and Costs

Needless to say, a finding of exceptionality under 35 U.S.C. § 285 can have crippling consequences. Just ask Rembrandt Technologies, LP, which recently was slapped with an order to pay the prevailing defendants in a...more

Judge Cote Holds Attorneys Liable for Trying to Keep a “Baseless” Case in E.D. Tex. that Sought Nuisance Payments from Numerous...

On December 8, 2016, District Judge Denise Cote (S.D.N.Y.) granted defendants Gust, Inc.’s (hereinafter, “Gust”) motion for attorneys’ fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 against plaintiff AlphaCap...more

Ninth Circuit Expands the Octane Fitness Attorneys’ Fee Standard to the Lanham Act

by Perkins Coie on

Following several other circuits as well as patent law precedent, in SunEarth, Inc. v. Sun Earth Solar Power Co., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently made it easier for Lanham Act litigants to recover...more

Ninth Circuit Applies Octane Fitness’ Loosened Fee-Shifting Standard to Trademark Cases

by Latham & Watkins LLP on

Ninth Circuit joins growing trend in circuit courts, which has practical implications for trademark litigants on both sides. Two years have passed since the US Supreme Court added some teeth to the Patent Act’s...more

Ninth Circuit Retires Fee-Award Standard, Imports Octane Fitness to Trademark Cases

This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit joined a majority of appellate courts that have rejected rigid tests for attorneys’-fees awards in favor of flexible discretion at the district court level. The...more

Federal Circuit Review | October 2016

by Knobbe Martens on

Withdrawal of Claims During Prosecution Can Trigger Prosecution History Estoppel In UCB, Inc. v. Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd., Appeal No. 2015-1957, the Federal Circuit held that prosecution estoppel can apply even...more

The 9th Circuit Injects Some “Octane” into the Lanham Act Attorneys’ Fee Provision

by Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

In the immortal words of the most recent Nobel Laureate in literature, “the times they are a changin.’” Section 35(a) of the Lanham Act provides that “[t]he court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to...more

Litigation Alert: Ninth Circuit Adopts Broader Octane Fitness Standard for Attorneys’ Fees Awards under the Lanham Act

by Fenwick & West LLP on

On October 24, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit after an en banc rehearing in Sunearth, Inc. v. Sun Earth Solar Power Co., LTD., adopted the Octane Fitness standard for determining whether a case is...more

Octane Fitness and Highmark Apply to Ninth Circuit Attorney Fee Awards under the Lanham Act

by Snell & Wilmer on

On October 24, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, held that district courts analyzing a request for attorney fees under the Lanham Act should consider the totality of the circumstances, as set forth in...more

Eleventh Circuit’s Liberal Reading of Bonner Mall a Game Changer for Class Actions?

by Carlton Fields on

An Eleventh Circuit panel recently vacated two district court orders after sending the parties to mediation, and after the parties’ conditioned settlement on vacatur of the orders. In Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v....more

100 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 4
Cybersecurity

"My best business intelligence,
in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.