Defendant is not prevailing party for fees where plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case after invalidity at the USPTO

O.F. Mossberg & Sons v. Timney Triggers was decided on April 13, 2020, on appeal from the District of Connecticut. Plaintiff Mossberg brought a suit for patent infringement against defendant Timney. While the case was stayed, the USPTO in an ex parte reexamination “rejected all pending claims over the cited …

Finding of bad faith is required to enjoin patentee from making infringement accusations

Myco v. BlephEx was decided on April 3, 2020 on appeal from the Eastern District of Michigan. Declaratory plaintiff Myco filed an action against declaratory defendant BlephEx, seeking a declaration of no infringement and that the claims of BlephEx’s patent are invalid, and for injunctive and monetary relief. The district …

Summary judgement of noninfringement vacated because settlement agreement mooted the case

Serta Simmons Bedding v. Casper Sleep was decided on February 13, 2020 on appeal from the Southern District of New York. In September 2017, plaintiff Serta filed a patent infringement lawsuit against defendant Casper. While Casper’s motions for summary judgment of non-infringement were pending, the parties executed a settlement agreement. …

Party’s misconduct must make the entire case exceptional to merit attorney fees

Intellectual Ventures I v. Trend Micro was decided on December 19, 2019 on appeal from the District of Delaware. In a related trial by plaintiff Intellectual Ventures against another defendant on the same patents, the jury found infringement of some claims and noninfringement of others. During that trial Intellectual Ventures’ …

Jury lump sum biologics royalty is supported by substantial evidence

Amgen v. Hospira was decided on December 16, 2019 on appeal from the District of Delaware. Following the biosimilar trial, the jury found some patent claims (and not others) infringed and awarded plaintiff Amgen a reasonable royalty lump sum of $70 million. “Of the twenty-one accused drug substance batches, the …

Release payment for past infringement of standard essential patents is a jury question

TCL Communication v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson was decided on December 5, 2019 on appeal from the Central District of California. Following a bench trial, the district court determined that declaratory defendant Ericsson’s proposed offers were not “fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory” (FRAND). “Over Ericsson’s repeated assertions of its jury trial right,” …

Attorney fees based on litigation misconduct reversed because movant is no longer a prevailing party

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 …

Damages available for products in amended complaint that relate back to the originally accused products

Anza Tech. v. Mushkin was decided on August 16, 2019 on appeal from the District of Colorado. Plaintiff Anza filed this action in March 2017 against Defendant Mushkin in the Eastern District of California. In September 2017, Anza filed its first amended complaint, which joined Avant as a co-defendant. The …

Case is not necessarily exceptional where litigation costs exceed the potential damages

ATEN International v. Uniclass was decided on August 6, 2019 on appeal from the Central District of California. The district court granted defendant Uniclass summary judgment on plaintiff ATEN’s lost profits theory of damages. So ATEN “proceeded to trial based on a reasonable royalty theory of damages, under which its …

Patent exhaustion and patent repair do not necessarily apply to replacement parts in design cases

Automotive Body Parts Association v. Ford Global Technologies was decided on July 23, 2019 on appeal from the Eastern District of Michigan. Plaintiff Automotive Body Parts Association (ABPA) sued defendant Ford seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity or unenforceability of two design patents covering a vehicle’s hood and headlamp respectively. ABPA …