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. …

Foreign suit doesn’t rebut laches presumption unless defendant knows of the subsequent US suit

Lismont v. Alexander Binzel was decided on February 16, 2016 on appeal from the Eastern District of Virginia. There, the district court granted summary judgment for Alexander Binzel, concluding that Lismont’s inventorship claim, which he filed in the US (in 2012) ten years after the patent issued, was barred by laches. Throughout …

No intervening rights despite that patentee modified the claims after a prior art rejection during reexam

Convolve v. Compaq was decided on February 10, 2016 on appeal from the Southern District of New York. There, the district court granted summary judgment of no infringement, and that liability was precluded by intervening rights arising from a December 2, 2008 substantive amendment to the asserted claims. Plaintiff Convolve appealed. The Federal Circuit …

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 …

Knowledge of the grandparent patent provides no actual notice for pre-issuance damages

Rosebud v. Adobe was decided on February 9, 2016 on appeal from the District of Delaware. The suit revolved around the ‘280 patent, a continuation of the ‘699 patent, which itself is a continuation of the ‘760 patent (the grandparent patent). There, the district court granted defendant-Adobe’s motion for summary judgment that …

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Site Update v. CBS is a nonprecedential case decided on February 1, 2016 on appeal from the Northern District of California.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 § …

Injunction upheld: Defendant didn’t raise a substantial question as to infringement or invalidity

Edge v. Aguila was a nonprecedential case decided on December 21, 2015 on appeal from the Southern District of Florida. There, plaintiff-Edge sued Defendant-Aguila for patent, trademark, and trade dress infringement. After the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, the district court granted Edge’s motion for preliminary injunction. Aguila appealed. The Federal Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction …

Lost profits proper despite that patentee’s product cost twice as much as the infringer’s

Akamai v. Limelight was decided on November 16, 2015 on appeal from the District of Massachusetts. There, a jury found that plaintiff Akamai’s patent (claiming a method for delivering content over the internet) was not invalid and was infringed by defendant Limelight. To prove damages, Akamai relied on Dr. Ugone’s expert testimony, …

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 …