Based on the plaintiff’s “unreasonable § 101 positions and vexatious litigation strategy,” Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas found an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and granted a defense motion for a…
Read More
A California district court recently considered the intersection between the patent-eligibility law of Alice and the fee award standard of Octane Fitness, set against the backdrop of a (mostly) successful challenge to the patent-i…
Read More
A recent case in which a court refused to find a case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and denied a defendant’s motion for fees, demonstrates how Octane Fitness has not greatly shifted the ground in many patent cases. In Ushi…
Read More
Discovery abuse and a reversal in an inventor’s trial testimony made for an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and therefore warranted an award of attorneys’ fees against a losing plaintiff in Digital Reg of Texas, L…
Read More
A plaintiff had licensed a patent to defendants, including a right to sub-license, but excluded certain uses of the claimed method. The plaintiff then sued the defendants based on those excluded uses. The defendants were award…
Read More
Awards of attorneys fees under 35 U.S.C § 285 may seem difficult to obtain, given the dual requirement of proving a party’s subjective bad faith, as well as the objective baselessness of its position. However, as demonstr…
Read More
Litigation misconduct, even without a showing of objective baselessness or bad faith, was enough to justify a finding of an exceptional case, and an award of attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Monolithic Power Systems,…
Read More
