USPTO’s attorney fees do not fall within Section 145’s “expenses” after district court appeal

Nantkwest v. Iancu was decided en banc on July 27, 2018 on appeal from the Eastern District of Virginia. 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 …

It was error to award all requested fees without causal connection between the misconduct and the award

Rembrandt v. Comcast was decided on July 27, 2018 on appeal from the District of Delaware. After several years of litigation by plaintiff Rembrandt “against dozens of cable companies, cable equipment manufacturers, and broadcast networks,” the district court “entered final judgment against Rembrandt as to all claims.” After an adverse claim construction, …

Invalidity contentions did not provide clear notice of patent’s invalidity for attorney fees

Stone Basket v. Cook Medical was decided on June 11, 2018 on appeal from the Southern District of Indiana. After the PTAB cancelled all asserted claims following an IPR, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice. Defendant Cook then moved for attorney fees. The district court denied the motion. Cook appealed. The …

Pro se plaintiff held liable for attorney fees and expert costs

Huang v. Huawei Technologies is a nonprecedential case decided on June 8, 2018 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. After serving invalidity contentions, defendant Huawei served a Rule 11 safe-harbor letter on pro se plaintiff Huang, asserting that Huang’s “claims were baseless and that a pre-suit investigation would have revealed …

District court decisions granting Section 285 attorney fees post Octane Fitness

Section 285 of the Patent Act provides that a district “court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” The Supreme Court in Octane Fitness v. Icon Health laid out the standard for exceptionality: an exceptional case “is simply one that stands out from others with respect to the …

Expert’s royalty methodology properly apportioned the value of nonpatented features and of standardization

Chrimar Holding v. ALE USA is a nonprecedential case decided on May 8, 2018 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. All four asserted patents were standard essential. Before trial the district court denied ALE’s motion to exclude the testimony of Chrimar’s damages expert regarding a reasonable royalty. A jury found …

Federal Circuit on providing actual notice under Section 287 for patent infringement damages

When there has been a failure to mark a patented product, 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) forecloses damages for infringement “except on proof that the infringer was notified of the infringement and continued to infringe thereafter, in which event damages may be recovered only for infringement occurring after such notice. Filing …

Dismissal with prejudice for lack of standing makes defendant a prevailing party for attorney fees

Raniere v. Microsoft was decided on April 18, 2018 on appeal from the Northern District of Texas. The district court dismissed plaintiff Raniere’s action with prejudice for lack of standing for Raniere’s failure to show ownership interest. Defendants, including Microsoft, moved for attorney fees under §285. The district court award fees and costs …

NPE case not exceptional because plaintiff had good faith positions and did not delay in its litigation tactics

Sarif Biomedical v. Brainlab is a nonprecedential case decided on March 21, 2018 on appeal from the District of Delaware. There were concurrent PTAB and district court litigations, but the PTAB litigation terminated before the district court litigation. Following claim construction adverse to plaintiff Sarif at the district court, the parties jointly …

What We Learned About Patent Remedies In 2017

2017 was a busy year for patent remedies. Except for the Supreme Court decision on laches, most of the action happened in the Federal Circuit. The graph below shows how many times each decision has been cited by another court. It’s updated as to January 26, 2018.   1. Laches …