Fees warranted where party showed pattern of suing and settling for sums below costs of defense

Rothschild v. Guardian was decided on June 5, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. There, the district court granted plaintiff Rothschild’s voluntary motion to dismiss. The court then denied defendants’ cross motion for attorney fees because Rothschild voluntarily withdrew its complaint within Rule 11’s safe harbor period (motions for …

Equity action to set aside judgment is exceptional because of meritless allegations

Nova Chemicals v. Dow was decided on May 11, 2017 on appeal from the District of Delaware. In 2010, after a jury trial, the court entered judgment against defendant NOVA for over $61 million in damages. During the supplemental-damages phase, NOVA became aware of evidence allegedly showing that plaintiff Dow and its …

False marking damages require concrete evidence of causation, not general assertions

Gravelle v. Kaba is a nonprecedential case decided on April 12, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of North Carolina . There, defendant Kaba marked its key-cutting machines as “patent pending” for two features—although no patent application for those features was ever filed. Plaintiff Gravelle filed suit pro se, …

Federal Circuit lists non-exclusive factors to consider when assessing exceptionality under §285

University of Utah v. Max Planck was decided on March 23, 2017 on appeal from the District of Massachusetts. There, the district court granted defendant Max Planck’s motions for summary judgment regarding the joint inventorship claims. The district court then denied Max Planck’s motion for attorney fees despite that plaintiff University of …

Fees warranted where party’s position went against the evidence and its own witnesses

Bayer v. Dow was decided on March 17, 2017 on appeal from the District of Delaware. There, after finding for defendant Dow on summary judgment, the district court awarded Dow attorney fees, concluding that plaintiff “Bayer’s weak positions on the merits and litigation conduct supported a finding that this was an exceptional …

Attorney fees warranted for litigant’s refusal to produce an issue-dispositive document

National Oilwell Varco v. Omron is a nonprecedential case decided on January 25, 2017 on appeal from the Western District of Texas. There, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice, finding that plaintiff Oilwell lacked standing, and awarded attorney fees to defendant Omron based on the exceptional nature of Oilwell’s litigation conduct. The …

Parties seeking attorney fees more frequently after Octane Fitness, but they are not more successful

This posts analyzes trends at the district courts pre and post Octane Fitness (decided April 29, 2014). The pre-Octane-Fitness period runs from March 2011 to April 29, 2014. And the post-Octane-Fitness  period runs from April 30, 2014 to Jun 2, 2017. The data includes only attorney-fees determinations under § 285. The motion granted category includes both …

After frivolous appeal, appellant’s counsel held jointly and severally liable for fees and double costs

Walker v. Health International was decided on January 6, 2017 on appeal from the District of Colorado. There, the district court awarded defendant Health attorney fees and costs for plaintiff Walker’s vexatious actions in continuing to litigate after the parties settled all claims. Walker appealed. Health claimed the appeal was frivolous, and …

What We Learned About Patent Remedies In 2016 (as published on Law360)

Link to article on Law360.  2016 was a busy year for patent remedies. The U.S. Supreme Court decided two cases, one on willfulness and the other on design patent damages. The Federal Circuit made law on willfulness, enhancement, attorney fees, antitrust damages, preissuance patent damages, and laches. This article will review these …

In calculating attorney fees, the trial court should use market rates of the forum state

Large Audience Display v. Tennman is a nonprecedential case decided on October 20, 2016 on appeal from the Central District of California. There, after the PTO issued an IPR certificate cancelling all of Plaintiff Large Audience’s claims asserted in the district court, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice. Defendants …