21 results for 'cat:"Patent" AND cat:"Attorney Fees"'.
J. King denies Brooks Sports' motion for $1 million in attorney fees for the shoemaker's complaint that Brooks infringed on the shoemaker's patent titled, “Shoe with Cushioning and Speed Enhancement Midsole Components and Method for Construction Thereof.” The counsel's failure to "carry the day" before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the shoemaker's failure to obtain and test the accused DNA material does not make this case exceptional, and thus does not justify the request.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: King, Filed On: March 31, 2024, Case #: 2:17cv1322, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, attorney Fees
J. Klausner grants the streaming service's motion for attorney fees for its complaint alleging that Netflix infringed on the former's patents. Netflix refusing to withdraw its invalidity defense before trial caused the streaming service harm, because several incidents of Netflix's conduct indicates that it already abandoned the defense before trial but pretended otherwise to have the streaming service spend more resources against the defense. The streaming service may seek attorney fees related to invalidity from Oct. 15, 2023 to Oct. 19, 2023.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Klausner, Filed On: March 26, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv7556, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, attorney Fees
J. Jones grants the consumer relationships software manufacturer's motion for re-taxation of costs and $6.8 million in attorney fees. Although summary judgment was granted in favor of the manufacturer in this suit alleging that it infringed certain cyber patents, a subsequently discovered clerical error supports the manufacturer's motion. Also, because the patentee's continuing to litigate after claim construction ended any likelihood of prevailing on the merits, an award of attorney’s fees is warranted.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Jones , Filed On: March 20, 2024, Case #: 3:13cv628, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, attorney Fees, Technology
J. Barker grants, in part, the patentholder's motion for attorney fees, ruling that while its success in the levy of sanctions against the competitor entitles it to reasonable fees for the outside counsel hired to litigate the sanctions, it is not entitled to fees for the work spent in crafting its reply to the opposition motion filed by the competitor; therefore, the patentholder is awarded $43,000 in fees.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Barker, Filed On: March 15, 2024, Case #: 1:21cv662, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: patent, attorney Fees, Contract
J. Kasubhai grants the software company's motion for attorney fees for remand proceedings relating to its complaint that the adhesive manufacturing company copied the protected design of the software company's patent for its serial number encoder. The adhesive manufacturing company's conduct during litigation makes this case exceptional, so fees are appropriate. The software company is also entitled to prejudgment interest of 9% to the $36 million damages portion of the initial final judgment.
Court: USDC Oregon, Judge: Kasubhai, Filed On: February 27, 2024, Case #: 6:17cv1685, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, Damages, attorney Fees
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Nugee finds a lower court properly dismissed a patent and trademark law firm's claims that a commission recovery service is not entitled to represent its disgruntled customers in court. The patent and trademark attorneys argued that it is not obligated to remind clients to pay a renewal fee for patent rights, and that it is entitled to pass their personal data to a patent annuities establishment for renewal alerts. However, the patent and trademark attorneys failed to disclose to clients that the renewal fees were exorbitant. Affirmed.
Court: Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, Judge: Nugee, Filed On: January 18, 2024, Case #: CA-2023-691, Categories: patent, Trademark, attorney Fees
J. Wright denies the Arizona company's motions for judgment as a matter of law, for a new trial and to alter or amend judgment in its patent suit against its Minnesota competitor, along with the competitor's motion for attorney fees. A jury's finding that the Arizona company did not prove infringement by a preponderance of the evidence and that its patent claims were invalid was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. The company also has not established that allegedly improper arguments changed the result of the trial, and while new non-infringement arguments introduced by the Minnesota competitor at trial should have been disclosed earlier, the Arizona company has not shown that they impacted the result enough to warrant a new trial. It also has not shown that jury instructions and evidentiary rulings were prejudicially erroneous. Claim construction disputes were resolved before trial and cannot justify a new trial. The Minnesota competitor, however, is not entitled to attorney fees since the Arizona company's case was not so weak, nor its litigation conduct so poor, as to warrant an attorney fees award, and "the relative resources available to each party weigh against rewarding Defendants for potentially overwhelming CellTrust in litigation."
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Wright, Filed On: December 6, 2023, Case #: 0:19cv2855, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: Jury, patent, attorney Fees
J. Robart awards the steel framing manufacturer $594,500 in attorney fees and $135,600 in costs, and awards Clarkwestern Dietrich Building Systems LLC $766,600 in attorney fees and $48,500 in costs, for the steel framing manufacturer's complaint that the company founder and others violated a patent order by infringing on the steel framing manufacturer's products.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Robart, Filed On: November 21, 2023, Case #: 2:18cv659, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: patent, attorney Fees, Contract
J. Barker grants, in part, the ash processing company's motion for sanctions against the mineral recovery machine manufacturer, ruling the inspector's photos and statements about the processing company's filtration system violated the parties' protective order. They were used on the manufacturer's patent application for a similar product and not solely for discovery, as required by the order. Therefore, the manufacturer will be enjoined from introducing the patent during this case while the ash processing company is awarded fees associated with this motion.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Barker, Filed On: November 7, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv662, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: patent, Sanctions, attorney Fees
J. Furman denies the defendants' request for attorneys' fees in a patent action related to a flashlight design. Despite the plaintiff's "egregious" conduct in not investigating the validity of its patent, fees are not warranted because the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its case without prejudice. However, the defendants are entitled to recover a $15,000 bond submitted in accordance with a temporary restraining order in its entirety.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Furman, Filed On: October 11, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv10377, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, Restraining Order, attorney Fees
J. Albright denies an alert company's motion for attorney fees on the grounds of an "exceptional case" after it was sued by another company for alleged infringement of several patents. The alert company was awarded attorney fees from the suing company in another case, which should be "sufficient both to discourage such conduct" and to prevent the alert company from suffering a "gross injustice."
Court: USDC Western District of Texas , Judge: Albright, Filed On: September 11, 2023, Case #: 6:22cv387, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, attorney Fees
J. McCalla grants the defendant company's motion for attorney fees in this patent infringement lawsuit related to a certain video surveillance system. The case was dismissed, and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal. "[A]n exceptional case determination" is appropriate, based in part on the plaintiff company's "pattern of litigation" and the weakness of the case.
Court: USDC Western District of Tennessee , Judge: McCalla, Filed On: September 8, 2023, Case #: 2:20cv2766, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: Civil Procedure, patent, attorney Fees
J. Engelmayer grants the shower curtain manufacturers' motion for attorney fees under the fee provisions of the Patent Act and the Lanham Act and awards $929,000 in attorney fees, as well as costs and pre- and post-judgment interest, in their favor in a patent infringement action against the competitors. The fee award is justified largely by the objective unreasonableness and unprofessionalism of the competitors in defending the case. The competitors ignored court rulings, repeatedly violated the scheduling order and unnecessarily prolonged the litigation. Judgment is entered in the amount of $2.9 million.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Engelmayer, Filed On: June 5, 2023, Case #: 1:15cv10154, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, attorney Fees