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 …

False marking damages require concrete evidence of causation, not general assertions

Gravelle v. Kaba is a nonprecedential case decided on April 12, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of North Carolina . There, defendant Kaba marked its key-cutting machines as “patent pending” for two features—although no patent application for those features was ever filed. Plaintiff Gravelle filed suit pro se, …

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 …

Fees warranted where party’s position went against the evidence and its own witnesses

Bayer v. Dow was decided on March 17, 2017 on appeal from the District of Delaware. There, after finding for defendant Dow on summary judgment, the district court awarded Dow attorney fees, concluding that plaintiff “Bayer’s weak positions on the merits and litigation conduct supported a finding that this was an exceptional …

In calculating attorney fees, the trial court should use market rates of the forum state

Large Audience Display v. Tennman is a nonprecedential case decided on October 20, 2016 on appeal from the Central District of California. There, 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. Defendants …

Federal Circuit on finding a case exceptional as to qualify for attorney fees

Because of the spate of recent Federal Circuit cases on the attorney-fees standard, I will write a post on the current state of the law of exceptionality under § 285. Supreme Court Section 285 of the Patent Act provides that a district “court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney …

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. …

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 § …

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 …