And On The 15th Day It Was Too Late

2010-1143 Juniper Networks v. GraphOn Corp.
ED/VA 09-cv-287
Judge Gerald Bruce Lee
Defendants GraphOn et al appeal from the order of Judge Gerald Bruce Lee striking their motion for attorneys’ fees under § 285 for being late:  the motion was filed on December 10, 2009—15 days after the Clerk entered the order of dismissal.

Nilssen: Sanctioned (Yet) Again

2010-1139 Nilssen v Wal-Mart
ND/IL 04-cv-5363
Judge Robert Gettlemen
Plaintiffs Ole Nilssen & Geo Foundation appeal from the order of Judge Gettlemen finding the case exceptional and awarding attorneys fees.

Exceptional Case Based On Inequitable Conduct During Prosecution

2010-1135 B-K Lighting v. Fresno Valves
CD/CA 06-cv-2825
Judge Margaret M. Morrow
Patentee B-K appeals from the order of Judge Margaret Morrow declaring the case exceptional under § 285 and awarding attorneys’ fees.  The award was due to inequitable conduct before the PTO in failing to disclose certain prior art.  The Court declined to base the decision [...]

iLOR Must Pay Google’s Legal Fees For Baseless Lawsuit

2010-1117 iLOR v Google
ED/KY 07-cv-109
Judge Joseph Hood

iLOR appeals from the finding of Judge Joseph Hood that its suit against Google was baseless and "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and that it should pay over $650,000 for Google's legal fees, costs and expenses.

Catching Up-Week of January 3, part 2

If part 1 was the ED/Michigan post, part 2 is SD/New York as 2 of the 3 cases come from there.  2009-1146 (SD/NY) is summary judgment of non-infringement; 2009-1147 (SD/NY) is summary judgment of equitable estoppel; and 2009-1149 (D/DE) is an "exceptional" finding and award of attorney's fee.

In Brief: Dippin’ Dots v. Mosey

2008-1337, 1125 Dippin' Dots v. MoseyND/TX 3:96-cv-1959Judge Thomas Thrash, Jr.
A case presumably on its last round as plaintiff appeals from the award under § 285 of attorney fees.  Dippin' Dots lost at trial, lost its trade dress appeal at the 11th Circuit, but partially won the appeal to the CAFC, getting a reversal on defendants' [...]

To Hell In A Handbag: Patent Unenforceable, Plaintiff And Counsel Hit With Fees

2008-1539 Advanced Magnetic v. Romag FastenersSD/NY 98-cv-7766Judge Paul Crotty
Plaintiff AMC appeals from the order of Judge Paul Crotty finding the case exceptional under § 285 and awarding attorney’s fees, and ruling AMC’s 5,572,773 patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.  The court also found litigation misconduct and AMC’s counsel jointly responsible for the attorney’s fees under [...]

Grantley Downs Clear Channel

2008-1508 Grantley Patent Holdings v. Clear ChannelED/TX 06-cv-259Judge Ron Clark
Clear Channel appeals from the judgment and orders of Judge Ron Clark confirming the jury’s verdict that Clear Channel willfully infringed Grantley’s patents and that the patents were not invalid or unenforceable.  With enhanced damages (+25% of damages), prejudgment interest and other add-ons, Clear Channel is [...]

Updated In Brief: Qualcomm v. Broadcom

2007-1545, 2008-1162 Qualcomm v. BroadcomSD/CA 05-CV-1958Judge Rudi Brewster
This is the appeal from case relating to the H.264 video compression standard resulting from the Joint Video Team, aka the case in which Qualcomm and its counsel were sanctioned.  We previously posted the Summary of the Arguments here, but now can provide copies of Qualcomm’s opening and [...]

“Excess” 285 Award Triggers Attorney Lien

2008-1386 Climax Molybdenum v. MolychemD/CO 02-cv-00311
Molychem’s co-counsel Ramon Pizarro appeals from Judge Matsch’s order giving him approximately $77,000 of the attorney’s fees award rather than the $215,000 he demanded.
Background:  Climax and Molychem engaged in a protracted battle at the ITC and in district court over Climax’s claims of patent infringement and Molychem’s Walker Process antitrust [...]