District court decisions granting Section 285 attorney fees post 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 laid out the standard for exceptionality: an exceptional case “is simply one that stands out from others with respect to the …

Equitable estoppel does not apply to pre-reexamination conduct of substantively modified reexamination claims

John Bean v. Morris & Associates was decided on April 19, 2018 on appeal from the Eastern District of Arkansas. In 2002, after plaintiff John Bean had contacted defendant Morris’ customers alleging infringement, Morris sent John Bean a letter notifying John Bean that its patent was invalid based on multiple prior …

Lost profits award reversed because of non-infringing substitute; permanent injunction then vacated

Presidio v. American Technical Ceramics was decided on November 21, 2017 on appeal from the Southern District of California. The invention concerned capacitors for storing and releasing energy. The district court granted defendant ATC’s motion for summary judgment on absolute intervening rights. The jury then returned a verdict of direct and induced infringement, …

No intervening rights despite that patentee modified the claims after a prior art rejection during reexam

Convolve v. Compaq was decided on February 10, 2016 on appeal from the Southern District of New York. There, the district court granted summary judgment of no infringement, and that liability was precluded by intervening rights arising from a December 2, 2008 substantive amendment to the asserted claims. Plaintiff Convolve appealed. The Federal Circuit …

Pre-reexamination damages not proper where patentee narrowed the claim during reexam

R+L Carriers v. Qualcomm was decided on September 17, 2015 on appeal from the Southern District of Ohio. There, after bringing suit, the plaintiff R+L filed for ex parte reexamination of the patent-in-suit. Although the patent survived reexam, R+L added language to the claim at issue. Because defendant Qualcomm ceased its alleged infringing …