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Honeywell v. Fujifilm is a nonprecedential opinion decided on January 11, 2018 on appeal from the District of Delaware.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 …

Court retained declaratory jurisdiction despite that DJ-defendant sold its IP assets prior to the DJ action

Industrial Models v. SNF is a nonprecedential case decided on November 7, 2017 on appeal from the Northern District of Texas. This suit relates to Industrial Models’ decision to enter the market for fiberglass utility bodies for use in trucks. In February 2013, plaintiff SNF sent defendant Industrial Models a cease-and-desist letter indicating that …

Attorney fee award affirmed in longstanding Octane Fitness saga

ICON v. Octane Fitness is a nonprecedential case decided on August 25, 2017 on appeal from the District of Minnesota. There, the district court awarded $1.6 million in attorney fees to defendant Octane Fitness, finding the case exceptional on remand from the Supreme Court. Plaintiff ICON appealed the exceptionality finding, and Octane …

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 …