Category Archives: Attorney’s Fees

Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.

Docket Nos. 2016-2442 WALLACH, CHEN, STOLL December 8, 2017 Brief summary: DC grant of attorney’s fees under § 285 for post-Alice decision conduct affirmed (“[i]t was IH’s responsibility to reassess its case in view of new controlling law”). Summary: IH … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

AIA America, Inc. et al. v. Avid Raiopharmaceuticals / U. Penn.

Docket No. 2016-2647 NEWMAN, LOURIE, HUGHES August 10, 2017 Brief summary: DC decision was affirmed because “there is no right to a jury trial for attorney’s fees under § 285”. Summary: AIA appealed DC award of § 285 attorney’s fees … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees | Leave a comment

AdjustaCam, LLC v. Newegg, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2016-1882 REYNA, MAYER, HUGHES July 5, 2017 Brief Summary: DC denial of Newegg’s motion for attorneys’ fees under § 285 was reversed and remanded since, e.g., the DC did not “actual[] assess the totality of the circumstances” as … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees | Leave a comment

Prism Technologies LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-2013, -2049 PROST, LOURIE, SCHALL June 23, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC decision of eligibility under § 101 reversed; decision of no exceptional case damages under § 285 affirmed. Summary: Prism appealed final DC decision denying its motions … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Patentability | Leave a comment

Nantkwest, Inc. v. Joseph Matal, et al. (USPTO)

Docket No. 2016-1794 PROST, DYK, STOLL (D) June 23, 2017 Update (Aug. 31, 2017):  Decision vacated and appeal reinstated, to be heard en banc Brief Summary: DC denial of USPTO’s request for attorney’s fees under § 145 reversed (“the applicant … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Attorney's Fees | Leave a comment

Checkpoint Systems, Inc. v. All-Tag Security, S.A. et al.

Docket No. 2016-1397 NEWMAN, LOURIE, MOORE June 5, 2017 Brief Summary: DC grant of attorney fees under § 285 because, e.g., “[e]nforcement of” Checkpoint’s right to “protect its own competitive advantage” “is not an ‘exceptional case’ under the patent law”. … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees | Leave a comment

Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC v. Guardian Protection Services, Inc. et al. (“ADS Security, L.P.”)

Docket No. 2016-2521 PROST, MAYER, WALLACH June 5, 2017 Brief Summary: DC denial of request for attorney’s fees under § 285 reversed and remanded (due, e.g., to “Rothschild’s willful ignorance of the prior art”). Summary: ADS appealed DC denial of … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Patentability | Leave a comment