This opinion was superseded. SRI International v. Cisco was decided on March 20, 2019 on appeal from the District of Delaware. The district court denied defendant Cisco’s motion for summary judgment of patent ineligibility and anticipation. At trial, the jury found willful infringement, and awarded plaintiff SRI a 3.5% reasonable royalty rate …
Drop Stop v. Zhu is a nonprecedential case decided on February 8, 2019 on appeal from the Central District of California. After the parties reached a settlement stipulating to infringement of some claims, plaintiff Drop Stop moved for attorney fees. The district court granted the motion and awarded $600,000 in fees …
Spineology v. Wright Medical was decided on December 14, 2018 on appeal from the District of Minnesota. The district court granted defendant Wright’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. The district court then denied Wright’s motion for attorney fees, holding that plaintiff Spineology’s positions were not so meritless as to render …
Large Audience Display v. Tennman is a nonprecedential case decided on August 20, 2018 on appeal from the Central District of California. After the PTO issued an IPR certificate cancelling all of Plaintiff Large Audience’s claims asserted in the district court, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice. On remand …
Rembrandt v. Comcast was decided on July 27, 2018 on appeal from the District of Delaware. After several years of litigation by plaintiff Rembrandt “against dozens of cable companies, cable equipment manufacturers, and broadcast networks,” the district court “entered final judgment against Rembrandt as to all claims.” After an adverse claim construction, …
Stone Basket v. Cook Medical was decided on June 11, 2018 on appeal from the Southern District of Indiana. After the PTAB cancelled all asserted claims following an IPR, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice. Defendant Cook then moved for attorney fees. The district court denied the motion. Cook appealed. The …
Huang v. Huawei Technologies is a nonprecedential case decided on June 8, 2018 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. After serving invalidity contentions, defendant Huawei served a Rule 11 safe-harbor letter on pro se plaintiff Huang, asserting that Huang’s “claims were baseless and that a pre-suit investigation would have revealed …
Section 285 of the Patent Act provides that a district “court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” The Supreme Court in Octane Fitness v. Icon Health laid out the standard for exceptionality: an exceptional case “is simply one that stands out from others with respect to the …
Energy Heating v. Heat On-The-Fly was decided on May 4, 2018 on appeal from the District of North Dakota. Before trial, the district court granted summary judgment in declaratory plaintiff Energy’s favor, dismissing some of declaratory defendant Heat’s infringement claims, and finding Heat’s asserted patent obvious. The jury found liability under …
Raniere v. Microsoft was decided on April 18, 2018 on appeal from the Northern District of Texas. The district court dismissed plaintiff Raniere’s action with prejudice for lack of standing for Raniere’s failure to show ownership interest. Defendants, including Microsoft, moved for attorney fees under §285. The district court award fees and costs …