Court retained declaratory jurisdiction despite that DJ-defendant sold its IP assets prior to the DJ action

Industrial Models v. SNF is a nonprecedential case decided on November 7, 2017 on appeal from the Northern District of Texas. This suit relates to Industrial Models’ decision to enter the market for fiberglass utility bodies for use in trucks. In February 2013, plaintiff SNF sent defendant Industrial Models a cease-and-desist letter indicating that …

Attorney fee award affirmed in longstanding Octane Fitness saga

ICON v. Octane Fitness is a nonprecedential case decided on August 25, 2017 on appeal from the District of Minnesota. There, the district court awarded $1.6 million in attorney fees to defendant Octane Fitness, finding the case exceptional on remand from the Supreme Court. Plaintiff ICON appealed the exceptionality finding, and Octane …

Seventh Amendment does not require a jury trial for attorney-fees factual inquiries

AIA America v. Avid was decided on August 10, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. There, after the jury found against plaintiff AIA on patent ownership and co-inventorship, the district court found AIA lacked standing to assert the patents. After allowing “the parties to submit extensive briefing, evidence, …

District court erred in holding that Octane Fitness does not apply to the Lanham Act

Romag Fasteners v. Fossil was decided on August 9, 2017 on appeal from the District of Connecticut. There, after the jury returned a verdict for trademark and patent infringement for plaintiff Romag, the district court granted attorney fees under the Patent Act but not under the Lanham Act, finding that defendant …

Case exceptional where plaintiff litigated after a conclusive Markman order, and had nuisance settlements

AdjustaCam v. Newegg was decided on July 5, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. There, Plaintiff AdjustaCam sued Defendant Newegg and dozens of other defendants for patent infringement, voluntarily dismissing most defendants early in the litigation. Though AdjustaCam continued to litigate against Newegg through a Markman order and extended …

Case not exceptional where accused products were different than those earlier held non-infringing

Parallel Networks v. Kayak is a non-precedential case decided on July 5, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. There, after granting Defendants Kayak’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, the district court denied their motion for attorney fees, finding nothing exceptional about either Plaintiff Parallel Networks’ infringement theory or …

Attorney fee award vacated because party no longer the prevailing party

Chaffin v. Braden was decided on June 23, 2017 on appeal from the Southern District of Texas. There, the district court granted defendant Braden’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, adopting Braden’s claim construction. The court subsequently found the case exceptional and awarded attorney fees to Braden. Chaffin appealed. The Federal Circuit reversed …

Section 145 requires applicant pay the USPTO’s attorney fees after district court appeal

Nantkwest v. Matal was decided on June 23, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Virginia. There, the USPTO rejected Nantkwest’s patent application on obviousness grounds. The PTAB affirmed the rejection, and Nantkwest appealed to the district court under 35 U.S.C. § 145. After prevailing at the district court, the USPTO …

Case not exceptional where defendant did not seek summary judgment of noninfringement

Prism v. T-Mobile is a nonprecedential case decided on June 23, 2017. There, after a jury verdict of non-infringement, the district court denied plaintiff Prism’s motions for new trial and for JMOL of infringement, and denied defendant T-Mobile’s motions for attorney fees and for patent-ineligibility under § 101. Both parties …

Pattern of enforcing patent rights doesn’t make a losing case exceptional

Checkpoint v. All-Tag was decided on June 5, 2017. There, a jury found Plaintiff Checkpoint’s patent not infringed, not invalid, and not unenforceable. After appeals to the Federal Circuit, and to the Supreme Court (in conjunction with Octane Fitness), the case returned to the district court on remand. On remand, …