Before Moore, Lourie, and Albright. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Summary: Awarding attorneys’ fees may be an abuse of discretion if the court relies on factors that should be...more
Before Prost, Dyk, and Wallach. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Summary: Asserting the district court’s claim construction prevented consideration of additional prior art,...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a denial of attorneys’ fees under 35 USC § 285 and cautioned future litigants to “tread carefully” in criticizing district courts. Spineology, Inc. v. Wright Medical...more
Federal Circuit Finds Claims Issued from Reexamination Co-Pending with Appeal Ineligible Where the Changes Did Not Affect Section 101 Eligibility - In SAP AMERICA, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, Appeal No. 2017-2081, the...more
Gust, Inc. v. AlphaCap Ventures, LLC, Appeal No. 2017-2414 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 28, 2018) In an appeal from a district court decision awarding fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, the Federal Circuit reversed. The decision makes...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before PROST, Wallach, and Taranto. Appeal from the Southern District of Indiana. Summary: In determining whether a party’s actions were “exceptional” under Octane Fitness, the District...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
District Court Abused Discretion in Not Finding Case Exceptional - In Rothschild Connected Devices v. Guardian Protection Services, Appeal No. 2016-2521, the Federal Circuit held that a district court abused its discretion...more
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
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
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
Supreme Court Abolished Federal Circuit's Test for Willfulness - On June 13, 2016, in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. ___ (2016), the Supreme Court unanimously abrogated the Federal Circuit’s...more
Overly Narrow Statement Of Problem Can Show Reliance On Hindsight - In INSITE VISION INCORPORATED v. SANDOZ, INC., Appeal No. 2014-1065, the Federal Circuit held that enunciating an overly narrow statement of the problem...more