Jury finding of willfulness doesn’t per se support enhancing damages or awarding attorney fees

Stryker v. Zimmer was decided on September 12, 2016 on appeal from the Western District of Michigan. There, a jury found plaintiff-Stryker’s patents valid and infringed, awarded $70 million in lost profits, and found that defendant-Zimmer willfully infringed under the then-controlling Seagate standard. The district court then issued an order rejecting Zimmer’s motion …

Federal Circuit on finding a case exceptional as to qualify for attorney fees

Because of the spate of recent Federal Circuit cases on the attorney-fees standard, I will write a post on the current state of the law of exceptionality under § 285. Supreme Court Section 285 of the Patent Act provides that a district “court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney …

2016 Mid-year review of remedies decisions

In this post, I will give a mid-year review of the patent remedies cases. The relevant time period is January 1st to June 30th, 2016. The graph below shows how many times each decision has been cited according to Google scholar. The graph is current as to November 29, 2016. …

No attorney fees: the losing party’s argument had a good-faith basis that the law could change

Mankes v. Vivid Seats was decided on April 22, 2016 on appeal from the Eastern District of North Carolina. There, the district court granted judgment on the pleadings for the defendants, finding no direct infringement. The district court then denied Vivid Seats request for attorney fees, finding the case not exceptional. …

Treble attorney fees for defending against a fraudulently obtained patent

TransWeb v. 3M was decided on February 10, 2016 on appeal from the District of New Jersey.  Prior than one year before the priority date of the asserted patents, defendant TransWeb’s founder handed out samples (that were arguably prior art) at an industry exposition. The jury found plaintiff 3M’s patents invalid …

No abuse of discretion because the district court gave reasons for the denial of attorney fees

Site Update v. CBS is a nonprecedential case decided on February 1, 2016 on appeal from the Northern District of California. There, after plaintiff Site Update and defendant Newegg agreed to dismiss the claims between them, the district court, applying Octane Fitness, denied Newegg’s request for attorney’s fees under § 285. Newegg appealed. The …

No enhancement because the lodestar method is presumptively reasonable for attorney fees

Lumen View Tech. v. Findthebest.com was decided on January 22, 2016 on appeal from the Southern District of New York. There, the district court held that plaintiff-Lumen View’s patent was directed to an abstract idea, and therefore was invalid under § 101. Defendant Findthebest then moved for an award of attorney fees under § …

Exceptionality finding upheld because the district court provided five independent bases

Integrated  v. Rudolph is a nonprecedential case decided on October 21, 2015, up on appeal for the second time from the District of Arizona. There, the jury returned a verdict of infringement and willfulness. At trial, it was discovered that defendant Rudolph continued to contest infringement even though its CEO personally thought that …

District court’s denial of attorney fees is vacated in light of Octane Fitness

Adjustacam v. Newegg is a nonprecedential case decided on September 17, 2015 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. There, after dismissing the case, the district court denied defendant Newegg’s motion for attorney fees under the then-prevailing Brooks Furniture standard. Newegg appealed the denial of fees. Plaintiff AdjustaCam appealed claim construction. …

Attorney fees grant vacated where underlying noninfringement decision was also vacated

TNS Media Research v. TiVo is a nonprecedential case decided on September 16, 2015 on appeal from the Southern District of New York. There, after plaintiff TNS filed suit against defendant TiVo seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement, TiVo counterclaimed for infringement of the patent. The district court granted TNS’s motion as to noninfringement and …