IP Blog
Enhanced Patent Damages / Attorney Fees
35 U.S.C. § 287(a) and the Burdens of Providing Notice for Pre-Suit Damages: Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc.
In Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. the Federal Circuit reversed a jury determination for pre-suit damages, and vacated an enhancement of such damages, for Netscout’s infringement of U.S. Patent 6,665,725, U.S. Patent 6,839,751, and U.S. Patent 6,954,789, all owned by Packet Intelligence. The patents at issue were all directed to monitoring packets exchanged over a computer network. The...
Willful Infringement Allegations Require More Than Conclusory Statements
In a recent decision from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, the court granted a motion to dismiss willful infringement allegations for lacking plausible factual allegations. IP Power v. Westfield , No. 2:19-cv-01878-MMD-NJK (D. Nev. June 4, 2020). This case centers around U.S. Patent No. 6,817,671, which is directed to a collapsible, reclining camp chair with...
No Attorney Fees for § 101 Dismissal: Data Scape Ltd. v. Spotify USA Inc.
Despite a refiled case and a subsequent dismissal for ineligible subject matter, plaintiff Data Scape escaped paying attorney fees to defendant Spotify in a recent decision from the Central District of California. Data Scape Limited v. Spotify USA Inc. et al., No. CV 19-4367 PSG (SKx) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2019). Data Scape is apparently a patent assertion entity, and...
Attorney Fees for Suing on Patent that “Looks Like Alice”
After dismissing a lawsuit alleging infringement of US Patent No. 9,569,755 (“Financial Management System”), Delaware’s Judge Richard Andrews has awarded attorney fees under Octane Fitness and 35 U.S.C. § 285, finding an exceptional case because claims of the ’755 patent were so clearly ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the Mayo/Alice abstract idea test. Finnavations LLC v. Payoneer, Inc.,...
Attorney Fees Awarded for Post-Alice Patent Litigation
The Federal Circuit has affirmed an award of attorney fees under 35 USC § 285 against a patent owner that pursued its case alleging infringement of a business method patent after the US Supreme Court decided Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l. in June 2014. Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., No. 2016-2442 ( Fed. Cir. Dec....
Alice Dismissal No Basis for Exceptional Case, Attorney Fees
Having brought a lawsuit for a patent who claims are found invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and an Alice dismissal, is the plaintiff’s conduct “objectively baseless” justifying an award of attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285? Given the unpredictability of how a court will rule on the question of patent-ineligibility, it is unsurprising that, especially in a close...
Patent Plaintiff Losing on Alice Isn’t an Exceptional Case
There was no exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 where a plaintiff filed and prosecuted a complaint alleging infringement of a patent whose claims were held invalid for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Telinit Technologies, LLC v. Alteva, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-369 (E.D. Texas, March 3, 2017). After a claim construction, the court had...
No Attorney Fees after Dismissal for Lack of Patent-Eligibility
Until the law defining patentable subject matter under § 101 gains clarity, don’t expect attorney fees for cases dismissed under § 101. And if a court denies your motion before the opposing party even responds, that’s a sign you may have pushed too far. In West View Research v. BMW, No. 14-CV-2670-CAB (WVG) (S.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2017), the court...
No Fee Award Against Plaintiff Who Asserted Patents Invalidated Under Alice
A district court has roundly rejected a request for an award of attorney fees against a plaintiff who asserted business method patents later found invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and Alice Corp v. CLS Bank. O2 Media LLC v. Narrative Science Inc., No. 15-CV-05129 (N.D. Ill. Jan 3, 2017). After succeeding with a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, the...
Complaint Alleging Business Methods Patent Infringement Results in Exceptional Case Finding and Fee Award
After granting a Rule 12 motion for judgment on the pleadings of invalidity of US Patent No. 6,381,582, and after the Federal Circuit affirmed that judgment without comment, a Delaware District Court found an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s fees and costs. Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond...