- Realtime Data III (Fed. Cir. 08/23/24) (vacating award of attorney fees after a patent-ineligibility judgment; prior ineligibility decisions on very similar claims of another patent in same patent family were significant red flags, but non-precedential decision of Fed. Cir. on different technology was not red flag, nor was IPR obviousness decision establishing that a particular claim limitation was known in the prior art (which did not make it conventional), nor was reexamination obviousness finding based on broadest reasonable interpretation construction, nor was conclusory letter from the defendant asserting ineligibility, nor was routine expert declaration supporting ineligibility); Miller Mendel (Fed. Cir. 07/18/24) (aff’g denial of fees where district court granted patent-ineligibility judgment on the pleadings); Alifax Holding (Fed. Cir. 06/11/24) (non-precedential) (aff’g denial of attorney fees where patent owner voluntarily dropped patent infringement counts five days into trial; not exceptional case in part because patent owner’s infringement position was supported by its expert testimony, but the expert testified inconsistently at trial, and district court had denied summary judgment of no infringement); Onesubsea IP (Fed. Cir. 05/23/23) (aff’g denial of fees in competitor-vs.-competitor case resulting in non-infringement Summ. J., where district court had initially declined to grant Summ. J. post Markman); VPersonalize (Fed. Cir. 02/04/21) (non-precedential) (aff’g denial of fees to prevailing defendant where some of the plaintiff’s causes of action survived a motion to dismiss); Mortgage Application (Fed. Cir. 01/12/21) (non-precedential) (aff’g as not abuse of discretion denial of fees after R. 12(c) judgment under Alice); Aten (Fed. Cir. 08/06/19) (aff’g denial of fees against unsuccessful patent owner despite expert witness expenditures exceeding amount of damages sought); Spineology (Fed. Cir. 12/14/18) (aff’g denial of fees award where district court granted Summ. J. of non-infringement; fees motion based in part on allegedly meritless damages theory; “a district court need not, as Wright seems to urge, litigate to resolution every issue mooted by summary judgment to rule on a motion for attorney fees.”); Stone Basket (Fed. Cir. 06/11/18) (aff’g denial of fees; neither in its invalidity contentions or otherwise did defendant provide clear particularized 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 Sys. (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).