This sunny day I’m celebrating my tulip poplar’s budding out with these JMOL rulings (including lots of interesting fees discussion) following a jury verdict.
See the difference a simple redaction makes, compared to the unredacted version a couple of days ago? Graceful and elegant, full of fees and fluffed damages, this is an order you’re really going to enjoy.
I know you love 35 U.S.C. § 285 – but it’s not a cause of action.
Jury finds patent infringed.
After I noticed this morning that last week Judge Gilstrap issued two orders on the same day on the same subject with opposite results, I noticed that Judge Barbara Lynn of the NDTX did the same thing this week – but on 285 motions. Hmm…
Our second Oyster (holding) deals with court costs and attorneys fees in connection with a different prevailing defendant.
I posted recently on the postverdict rulings in the Tinnus case, and thought readers might be interested in the restated final judgment and permanent injunction, which provides the specific amount of attorneys fees.
This is another case where an EDTX court has allowed the addition of an individual who was alleged to have controlled litigation decisions for a patent plaintiff to a case for purposes of satisfying a Section 285 fee award.
One of the lasting effects of Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s lengthy stay at the White House in December of 1941 was President Roosevelt ordering a replica of his “map room” to be created in what had been the billiards room just steps from his elevator and his doctor’s office on the ground floor of the mansion. In memory of its use, for many years the last situation map prepared for President Roosevelt on April 3, 1945 hung over the mantel in this room. But FDR’s interest in precisely where his nation’s units were may pale in comparison to patent lawyers’ interest in reading the latest determinations of whether certain conduct gets a thumb tack for “exceptional” for purposes of an award of attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §285.
I have posted many times on the Tinnus v. Telebrands litigation, which involves water balloon patents. Another order is now out, this time involving postverdict motions including recovery of enhanced damages and attorneys fees for “exceptional” case status, as well as and entry of a permanent injunction. It is one readers will want to study, as it contains some actions that are extraordinary – even by patent litigation standards. When a court’s order uses the term “flagrantly” multiple times, you know things are about to get very interesting. There is much to be learned here, so let’s begin …