Declaratory action by U.S. manufacturer improper where notice letters targeted foreign distributors for infringing a foreign patent

Allied Mineral v. Osmi was decided on September 13, 2017 on appeal from the Southern District of Florida. In June 2015, Stellar sent notice letters to two Mexican companies, accusing them of infringing Stellar’s Mexican patent. The Mexican companies were distributors of Allied, an American company. Allied manufactures the products accused of infringement in …

Patent owner’s lost profits, willfulness finding, and enhanced damages affirmed

Georgetown Rail v. Holland was decided on August 1, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. A jury found that defendant Holland willfully infringed plaintiff Georgetown Rail’s patent and award lost profits. The district court then denied Holland’s motion for JMOL, and enhanced damages based on the finding of willfulness. …

No Walker Process violation because there was no showing of intent to deceive the PTO

Alfred T. Giuliano v. SanDisk is a non-precedential case decided on July 27, 2017 on appeal from the Northern District of California. There, after Plaintiffs brought a Walker Process antitrust class action against SanDisk, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of SanDisk because the record did not show evidence sufficient to raise …

For multi-component products, causal nexus only requires some connection between the feature and product demand

Genband v. Metaswitch was decided on July 10, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. There, after a jury found that Defendant Metaswitch infringed claims of Plaintiff Genband’s patents, and that the claims were not invalid, Genband moved for a permanent injunction. The district court denied the request because “Genband …

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Parallel Networks v. Kayak is a non-precedential case decided on July 5, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas.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 …

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, …

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 …

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 …