Posts Tagged: "litigation misconduct"

Examining Octane Fitness Five Years On

Five years ago today, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Octane Fitness LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., empowering district courts to award attorneys’ fees in those patent case that “stand out from others.” Last year, we crunched the numbers and explored several notable trends that have emerged post-Octane Fitness. For that article, we looked at nearly 420 decisions spanning nearly four years. In the last 14 months, district courts have been asked to declare patent cases exceptional another 165 times. Below, this article revisits the statistics and takes a deeper look at the line between zealous advocacy and litigation misconduct that can serve as the basis of an exceptional case determination.

Christine Armellino & Robert Frederickson

April 29, 2019

Governments’ Thumb on the Scales

These government agencies target successful, inventive U.S. firms. They politicize their processes and disregard the exclusivity that rightfully belongs to patent owners. They take away private property from the creators and give it to favored domestic companies like Samsung and Huawei, which apparently lack the smarts to win fair and square in market-based competition or by ingenuity. It’s time that America put an end to these threats, foreign and domestic. Either you believe in property rights and free enterprise or you don’t… In essence, Chinese, South Korean and FTC officials demand the benefits produced by free markets and property rights for free from American innovators in mobile technology, who took all the risk and made investments in research and development.

James Edwards

March 26, 2017

Inadequate Investigation Prior to Patent Infringement Lawsuit Merits Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Prior to filing the lawsuit the Plaintiff sought the opinion of patent counsel to evaluate the prospect of a patent infringement suit against the Defendants, and received such an opinion in the form of a letter from opinion counsel. A claims chart was attached to the opinion letter, which identified the limitations of the claims, the opinion counsel’s interpretation of each of the limitations, and an opinion as to whether each limitation is present in the accused product. Neither the letter nor the chart contained explanation of counsel’s claim construction and his application of the claim limitations to the accused product. There were no citations to the specification or prosecution history, and no analysis provided to explain why counsel construed the patent terms the way in which he did.

Gene Quinn

July 19, 2011

Posts Tagged: "litigation misconduct"

Varsity Sponsors

Latest IPW Posts

Updated WHO Pandemic Accord Retains Commitments for Non-Exclusive Licensing and Royalty Waivers

Tenth Circuit Reworks Opinion on Extraterritorial Reach of Lanham Act as Per SCOTUS

The SEP Couch: Lyse Brillouet on Managing SEPs and Open Standards

FTC Approves Final Rule to Ban All New Non-Compete Agreements in 3-2 Vote

The Briefing: Tennessee’s ELVIS Act – Is This Attempt to Protect Musicians (and Record Labels) in the AI Era Enforceable?

IPWatchdog Events

Artificial Intelligence Today: A Discussion of the Legal and Technical Landscape of AI (Replay)

Assessing Risks in AI Technologies (Replay)

Artificial Intelligence, Fair Use, and the Future of Copyright Law (Replay)

The Role of Trade Secret Protection for AI Related Data, Technology & Innovation (Replay)

Antitrust Challenges to Artificial Intelligence (Replay)

From IPWatchdog