Losing a summary judgment motion does not automatically make the plaintiff’s case exceptional

Honeywell v. Fujifilm is a nonprecedential opinion decided on January 11, 2018 on appeal from the District of Delaware. The district court found plaintiff Honeywell’s patent invalid on summary judgment. The court thereafter denied defendant Fujifilm’s motion for attorney fees. Fujifilm appealed. The Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of attorney fees. The …

Fees awarded because plaintiff continued with meritless eligibility arguments after Alice

Inventor Holdings v. Bed Bath & Beyond was decided on December 8, 2017 on appeal from the District of Delaware. After the Supreme Court decided Alice, defendant BBB won judgment on the pleadings that plaintiff Inventor Holdings’ patent was invalid under Alice. BBB then moved for attorney fees. The district court granted …

District court erred in holding that Octane Fitness does not apply to the Lanham Act

Romag Fasteners v. Fossil was decided on August 9, 2017 on appeal from the District of Connecticut. There, after the jury returned a verdict for trademark and patent infringement for plaintiff Romag, the district court granted attorney fees under the Patent Act but not under the Lanham Act, finding that defendant …

Case exceptional where plaintiff litigated after a conclusive Markman order, and had nuisance settlements

AdjustaCam v. Newegg was decided on July 5, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. There, Plaintiff AdjustaCam sued Defendant Newegg and dozens of other defendants for patent infringement, voluntarily dismissing most defendants early in the litigation. Though AdjustaCam continued to litigate against Newegg through a Markman order and extended …

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Parallel Networks v. Kayak is a non-precedential case decided on July 5, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas.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

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Prism v. T-Mobile is a nonprecedential case decided on June 23, 2017.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, …

Fees warranted where party showed pattern of suing and settling for sums below costs of defense

Rothschild v. Guardian was decided on June 5, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. There, the district court granted plaintiff Rothschild’s voluntary motion to dismiss. The court then denied defendants’ cross motion for attorney fees because Rothschild voluntarily withdrew its complaint within Rule 11’s safe harbor period (motions for …

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 …