Cases Awarding Fees

  • Large Audience II (Fed. Cir. 08/20/18) (non-precedential) (aff’g award of $737K in fees and costs including reexamination fees; exceptional case based on (1) untenable opposition to motion to transfer from EDTX; (2) assertion of “objectively weak” arguments to the PTO during reexamination,; and (3) use of a “clear[ly]” privileged email between defendant and its attorneys in its opposition to motion for attorney fees.);  In re Rembrandt Tech. (Fed. Cir. 08/15/18) (aff’g exceptional case finding but vacating award of $51 MM in fees, where patent owner agreed to give contingent-fee stake in litigation to consultants who were foreseeable fact witnesses “only for their help with a licensing or litigation campaign—and not associated with assignment or license of patent rights, bad faith spoliation, and patent owner should have known asserted patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct in revival of expired patents, specifically falsely declaring that failure to pay maintenance fees was unintentional.); Raniere (Fed. Cir. 04/18/18) (aff’g fees award based on “‘a pattern of obfuscation and bad faith,’” and positions “‘made in bad faith to vexatiously multiply these proceedings and avoid early dismissal’”); Inventor Holdings (Fed. Cir. 12/08/17) (aff’g district court award of $931,903.45 in “post-Alice attorney fees, including fees incurred during the appeal.”); Icon Health (Fed. Cir. 08/25/17) (non-precedential) (aff’g over $1.6MM fee award (which district court granted on remand post Octane Fitness when had denied fees pre Octane Fitness) based on weak claim construction positions, patentee’s litigation conduct intended to raise defendant’s costs, patentee’s insufficient pre-suit analysis, patentee’s non-commercialization of asserted patent and suit being merely for royalties supporting district court’s conclusion that fees were needed to deter further meritless suits); Nova Chem. (Fed. Cir. 05/11/17) (aff’g award of fees where suit was objectively baseless although not brought in bad faith); Bayer Cropscience (Fed. Cir. 03/17/17) (aff’g award of fees against patent owner and licensor, where its interpretation of the license agreement was implausible and contradicted by its own witnesses and statements, it failed to do sufficient due diligence, and filed frivolous preliminary injunction motion in midst of targeted discovery which would debunk its claim); Lumen View (Fed. Cir. 01/22/16) (aff’g exceptional case finding: “allegations of infringement were ill-supported, particularly in light of the parties’ communications and the [patent owner’s own] proposed claim constructions, and thus the lawsuit appears to have been baseless.”); Integrated Tech. II (Fed. Cir. 10/21/15) (non-precedential) (aff’g finding of exceptional case despite plaintiff winning only part of case); Homeland (Fed. Cir. 09/08/14) (non-precedential) (aff’g award of attorneys’ fees against patent owner ivo failure to produce evidence of infringement before the Summ. J. ruling and repeated filing of unsolicited papers).