UCP v. Balsam Brands is a nonprecedential case decided on September 19, 2019 on appeal from the Northern District of California. The district court granted declaratory judgment plaintiff UCP’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. The district court then granted-in-part and denied-in-part UCP’s motion for attorney fees against declaratory defendant Balsam, holding that “UCP was entitled to only limited attorney fees under § 285 based on Balsam’s conduct in the Declaratory Judgment Litigation.” The court denied fees with respect to a related litigation and denied expert fees. Both parties appealed. The Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment on infringement in the co-pending merits appeal.
The Federal Circuit reversed the decision to award attorney fees.
“By its terms, § 285 requires that the recipient of attorney fees be a ‘prevailing party.’” In this case, the district court awarded fees only after granting UCP’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. Where the Federal Circuit vacates or reverses the judgment in the Merits Appeal, “[it] must also reverse the fee award.” “Prevailing party status is a prerequisite to an award of attorney fees under that statutory section. It is therefore immaterial that the district court awarded attorney fees under § 285 based on Balsam’s [litigation misconduct].”
It improves semen load and sperm count to enjoy intense sexual pleasure cialis tadalafil 50mg 4frontimports.com in climax. Experts claim that major concerns have been raised about plausible long-term vision impairment in men who used viagra generic discount PDE5-inhibitors to overcome erectile dysfunction. Revisiting the natural point, you can be free from any side-effects cialis tablets uk or health hazards. For those who have not gained so much courage to see sexologist or don’t have time in their busy schedule or whatever reason, this article has been written, and dedicated to understanding the situations in which one experiences http://www.4frontimports.com/wines/a-d-wines cialis sale assorted episodes of life.
The district court did not err in awarding on limited fees for Balsam’s conduct in the declaratory judgment litigation. “UCP is not entitled to additional attorney fees under § 285 for the same reason it is not entitled to the limited attorney fees the court awarded—it is not a “‘prevailing party.’”