The court granted the defendant’s motion for exceptional case. It denied the motion for sanctions, and trimmed the post-dismissal part of the fees, eventually awarding $92,130.35.
Judge Gilstrap denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff’s opposition to a motion to stay was not objectively unreasonable, and that the petitions it filed with the U.S. Supreme Court and before the PTAB were not frivolous or filed in bad faith.
The plaintiff asserted several objections to Magistrate Judge Baxter’s award of fees, none of which Judge Schroeder agreed with. Specifically,
Judge Gilstrap rejected the defendant’s request for fees following a dispositive claim construction ruling.
Judge Schroeder overruled the objections to Magistrate Judge Baxter’s fee award.
Judge Payne clarified this in a recent order.
One out of three’s not … well, maybe it is. And check out the forum selection comment.
The Court concluded that it didn’t stand out, noting that the “mere fact that a court rules against a patent owner does not render a case ‘exceptional’” even where, as here, the patent was susceptible to a finding of ineligibility at the FRCP 12(c) stage.
The court denied the prevailing defendant’s motion for fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Judge Gilstrap affirmed the jury’s noininfringement and patent-ineligible finding, but declined to award fees.
