Cases Denying Fees

  • Stone Basket (Fed. Cir. 06/11/18) (aff’g denial of fees; neither in its invalidity contentions or otherwise did defendant provide clear particularlized notice of invalidity over reference it asserts as primary basis for fees, or file Rule 11 motion, or say case was exceptional; and primary reference asserted was cited art; despite inventor in deposition saying there was “nothing novel” amount element added to claim to overcome rejection); Chrimar (Fed. Cir. 05/08/18) (non-precedential) (aff’g denial of fees where dropping of defenses and counterclaims before and during trial was normal narrowing of claims for trial); Sarif (Fed. Cir. 03/21/18) (non-precedential) (aff’g denial of fees where Sec. 112(6/f) element rendered claims indefinite); Honeywell (Fed. Cir. 01/11/17) (non-precedential) (aff’g denial of fees despite plausible arguments in favor of fees in view of “abuse of discretion” review standard and trial court properly followed totality-of-the-circumstances approach); Parallel Networks II (Fed. Cir. 07/05/17) (aff’g denial of fees; prior panel decision did not make infringement implausible); Checkpoint Systems (Fed. Cir. 06/05/17) (rev’g award of fees; “The legislative purpose behind § 285 is to prevent a party from suffering a ‘gross injustice’”); Univ. of Utah (Fed. Cir. 03/23/17) (aff’g denial of award of attorney fees in inventorship dispute); Angioscore (Fed. Cir. 11/08/16) (non-precedential) (aff’g denial of fees award in part because patent owner had defeated a non-infringement summary judgment motion); Large Audience (Fed. Cir. 10/20/16) (non-precedential) (vacating J. Real fees award; rejecting reliance on cancellation of claims in reexamination ivo different standard of proof and different claim construction, although “reexamination rejection of asserted claims may be relevant to an assertion of frivolousness in some cases”); Gaymar (Fed. Cir. 06/25/15) (aff’g judgment that losing patentee’s position not objectively baseless; rejecting factors relevant to subjective prong only; misconduct of movant a factor under totality of the circumstances, but sloppy lawyering is not misconduct); Biax Corp. (Fed. Cir. 02/24/15) (non-precedential) (rev’g fees award against patent owner where trial court’s claim construction remained ambiguous until it awarded Summ. J. and thus infringement assertion was not objectively unreasonable).