Cases where there are exceptional motions going both ways due to a reversal after trial after trial are … interesting.
Section 285 orders aren’t quite as scary as they were a few weeks ago, but they’re still worth studying to see what conduct crossed the line.
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.