Case not exceptional where objectionable conduct was previously considered in granting sanctions motion

Khan v. Hemosphere is a nonprecendential case decided on August 13, 2020, on appeal from the Northern District of Illinois. Pro se plaintiffs Khans “alleged that the defendant corporations, hospitals, and physicians directly and indirectly infringed” their patent. The Khans sued “three hundred defendants.” The district court dismissed without prejudice …

Denial of fees vacated where plaintiff filed multiple suits to obtain low-value settlements

Electronic Communication Technologies v. ShoppersChoice.com was decided on July 1, 2020, on appeal from the Southern District of Florida. The district court granted Defendant ShoppersChoice’s motion for judgment on the pleadings invalidating independent claim 11 of Plaintiff ECT’s asserted patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Subsequently, the district court denied ShopperChoice’s …

On appeal, a party cannot recover fees incurred at the PTAB under Section 285

Amneal Pharm v. Almirall was decided on June 4, 2020, on appeal from the PTAB. After Amneal filed a petition for an IPR challenging Almirall’s patent, Almirall sued Amneal in the district court on a different patent. The parties engaged in settlement discussions, in which Almirall offered to enter into …

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’ …

Fees warranted because of NPE plaintiff’s unreasonable conduct and to deter future abusive litigation

Blackbird v. Health In Motion was decided on December 16, 2019 on appeal from the Central District of California. “[S]hortly before discovery was scheduled to end,” defendant Health In Motion filed a motion for summary judgment. After the motion was fully briefed, without notice to Health, plaintiff Blackbird filed a …

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UCP v. Balsam Brands is a nonprecedential case decided on September 19, 2019 on appeal from the Northern District of California.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 …

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 …

Willfulness, enhancement, and attorney fees vacated

SRI International v. Cisco was originally decided on March 20, 2019, and modified on July 12, 2019 on appeal from the District of Delaware. In the modified opinion, the Federal Circuit vacated the award of attorney fees, which was based in part on the vacated willfulness finding, and remanded for further consideration …

Dismissal under Section 101 and subsequent grant of attorney fees are vacated

CellSpin Soft v. Fitbit was decided on June 25, 2019 on appeal from the Northern District of California. Plaintiff CellSpin filed more than a dozen cases alleging infringement of certain patents. On a motion to dismiss, the district court found that none of the asserted claims were patent eligible. The district court found the …

Case exceptional where Plaintiff did not perform a simple test of the publicly available accused products

ThermoLife v. GNC was decided on May 1, 2019 on appeal from the Southern District of California. Plaintiff ThermoLife brought suit against Defendant GNC, and other defendants, for patent infringement. This was one of 81 infringement lawsuits the exclusive licensee filed. The patents relate to “methods and compositions involving the amino …