Defendant was prevailing party for fees after invalidating asserted claims at the PTAB

Dragon Intellectual Property v. DISH Network was decided on April 21, 2020 on appeal from the District of Delaware. After plaintiff Dragon sued defendant DISH for patent infringement, Dish filed a petition seeking inter partes review of the asserted patent. Following a claim construction hearing at the district court, the …

Defendant is not prevailing party for fees where plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case after invalidity at the USPTO

O.F. Mossberg & Sons v. Timney Triggers was decided on April 13, 2020, on appeal from the District of Connecticut. Plaintiff Mossberg brought a suit for patent infringement against defendant Timney. While the case was stayed, the USPTO in an ex parte reexamination “rejected all pending claims over the cited …

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UCP v. Balsam Brands is a nonprecedential case decided on September 19, 2019 on appeal from the Northern District of California.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

Federal Circuit on determining the prevailing party for Section 285 attorney fees under Octane Fitness

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 held that an exceptional case “is simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive …

Attorney fees reversed because plaintiff was no longer the prevailing party

Imperium v. Samsung is a nonprecedential case decided on January 31, 2019 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. After a jury verdict against defendant Samsung, the district court concluded that plaintiff Imperium was entitled to attorney fees as a prevailing party. Samsung appealed. The Federal Circuit reversed the attorney fees …

Dismissal with prejudice for lack of standing makes defendant a prevailing party for attorney fees

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 …

Attorney fee award vacated because party no longer the prevailing party

Chaffin v. Braden was decided on June 23, 2017 on appeal from the Southern District of Texas. There, the district court granted defendant Braden’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, adopting Braden’s claim construction. The court subsequently found the case exceptional and awarded attorney fees to Braden. Chaffin appealed. The Federal Circuit reversed …

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 …

Attorney fees grant vacated where underlying noninfringement decision was also vacated

TNS Media Research v. TiVo is a nonprecedential case decided on September 16, 2015 on appeal from the Southern District of New York. There, after plaintiff TNS filed suit against defendant TiVo seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement, TiVo counterclaimed for infringement of the patent. The district court granted TNS’s motion as to noninfringement and …