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.
This fee award is a good example of how not to prosecute a patent case.
This photo from our 25th anniversary trip to NYC last week is to remind you that just because you won at trial doesn’t mean it’s Christmas, as Judge Albright recently held.
People are always interested in what judges are doing with motions for fees under section 285 at the end of a patent case. This is a good example.
The fact that the motions to dismiss were joint and there was a lack of bad faith filing by plaintiff was important.
Like patent litigation, trademark litigation has a statue that permits fees in “exceptional cases”.
The motion is denied, but counsel’s conduct is “fundamentally unacceptable in civilized society.” Well.
The issue was whether the prevailing party could get additional parties added to satisfy a Section 285 award.
