32 Cited authorities

Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.
572 U.S. 545 (2014) Cited 1,384 times 122 Legal Analyses
Holding that an "exceptional" case under § 285 is "one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigating position ... or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated"
Graham v. John Deere Co.
383 U.S. 1 (1966) Cited 3,153 times 48 Legal Analyses
Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness
Anheuser-Busch v. Natural Beverage Distributors
69 F.3d 337 (9th Cir. 1995) Cited 743 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that terminating sanctions are available when "a party has engaged deliberately in deceptive practices that undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings"
Hazel-Atlas Co. v. Hartford Co.
322 U.S. 238 (1944) Cited 1,054 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that federal courts have the inherent power to grant relief against judgments for "after-discovered fraud"
Eurand, Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc. (In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig.)
676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 304 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that “the proper inquiry [in a best mode analysis] focuses on the adequacy of the disclosure rather than motivation for any nondisclosure”
Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc.
566 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 278 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a chemical formulation that the applicants could have claimed given that it appeared in their priority application, but chose not to, falls outside the scope, literal or equivalent, of the claim
WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.
829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016) Cited 225 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that a nexus can be presumed when the asserted objective indicia is tied to a specific product and the product is the invention claimed in the patent
Scripps Clinic Research Fdn. v. Genentech
927 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1991) Cited 448 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that such claims are not limited by the process
Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.
713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 480 times 12 Legal Analyses
Finding evidence of nonobviousness in the "[r]ecognition and acceptance of patent by competitors who take licenses under it"
Schumer v. Laboratory Computer Systems
308 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 254 times
Holding that the preambles at issue — "point of origin," "angle of rotation," and "scale" — did not limit the scope of the digitizer invention but simply described features that necessarily exit in any coordinate system for a digitizer
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 94,817 times 651 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses
Fed. R. Evid. 702 Cited 26,638 times 254 Legal Analyses
Adopting the Daubert standard
Section 285 - Attorney fees
35 U.S.C. § 285 Cited 3,197 times 476 Legal Analyses
Granting district courts discretion to award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in exceptional cases

Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories

32 Cited authorities

Holding that an "exceptional" case under § 285 is "one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigating position ... or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated"

Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

Holding that terminating sanctions are available when "a party has engaged deliberately in deceptive practices that undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings"

Holding that federal courts have the inherent power to grant relief against judgments for "after-discovered fraud"

Holding that “the proper inquiry [in a best mode analysis] focuses on the adequacy of the disclosure rather than motivation for any nondisclosure”

Holding that a chemical formulation that the applicants could have claimed given that it appeared in their priority application, but chose not to, falls outside the scope, literal or equivalent, of the claim

Holding that a nexus can be presumed when the asserted objective indicia is tied to a specific product and the product is the invention claimed in the patent

Holding that such claims are not limited by the process

Finding evidence of nonobviousness in the "[r]ecognition and acceptance of patent by competitors who take licenses under it"

Holding that the preambles at issue — "point of origin," "angle of rotation," and "scale" — did not limit the scope of the digitizer invention but simply described features that necessarily exit in any coordinate system for a digitizer

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Adopting the Daubert standard

Granting district courts discretion to award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in exceptional cases