News & Analysis as of

Totality of Circumstances Test Attorney's Fees

Holland & Knight LLP

D. Delaware Awards Attorneys' Fees Due To Weak Section 101 Arguments, Patent Litigation Conduct

Holland & Knight LLP on

CompanyCam moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint because the asserted '872 patent, titled "Device and Method for Embedding and Retrieving Information in Digital Images," was directed to ineligible subject matter. The U.S....more

Knobbe Martens

A Litigation Position May Be Objectively Unreasonable Even If the Court Denies Summary Judgment

Knobbe Martens on

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

McDermott Will & Emery

Seventh Circuit Formally Adopts Octane Fitness Standard for Trademark Cases

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

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Defendant’s “Staged Delay” in Withdrawing FRAND Affirmative Defenses Amounted to “Rank Gamesmanship” and Supported an Award of...

Chief Judge Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas held that the litigation conduct of defendants Huawei Device USA, Inc. and Huawei Device (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Huawei”), in a patent infringement action,...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Counterproductive and Cost-Increasing Litigation Tactics Are Objectively Unreasonable in Section 285 Attorney Fee Award Analysis

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

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Where Both Parties Behave Badly in Litigation, Attorneys’ Fees Are Unlikely to Be Awarded

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

Knobbe Martens

Stone Basket Innovations, LLC v. Cook Medical, LLC

Knobbe Martens on

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

Proskauer - New England IP Blog

Cold to Mootness Challenge, But Warm to Inequitable Conduct Defenses

In a recent opinion from the District of Massachusetts, Judge Woodlock provided a reading on the mootness of an inequitable conduct counterclaim, where the asserted claims of the thermometer patent at issue were previously...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Octane Fitness Hits the Showers: Federal Circuit Affirms Attorneys’ Fees Award in Landmark Case

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

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - August 2017

Knobbe Martens on

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

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

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

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

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

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Lanham Act Lesson: Dropbox Drop Kicks Opponent and Scores Attorneys’ Fees Award

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

As the sun set on 2016, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Sunearth, Inc. v. Sun Earth Solar Power, Co. embraced a new standard for awarding attorneys’ fees in Lanham Act cases. Adopting the U.S. Supreme Court’s rationale...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

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

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | October 2016

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

Fenwick & West LLP

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

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

Snell & Wilmer

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

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

McDermott Will & Emery

Extending the Reach of Octane Fitness Under the Lanham Act **WEB ONLY**

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit adopted and applied the Supreme Court of the United States’ rationale for an award of attorneys’ fees in patent cases to a trademark case. In doing so, the Fifth Circuit aligned...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Judge Gilstrap awards Section 285 fees where Plaintiff’s Section 101 positions cross the “threshold of exceptionality.”

On December 17, 2015, Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) ruled that, in light of Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“Alice”), a plaintiff’s position on...more

19 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide