§Why CasetextPricing

Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc.

RESPONSE

26 Cited authorities

  1. Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.

    572 U.S. 545 (2014)   Cited 1,386 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"

  2. Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper

    447 U.S. 752 (1980)   Cited 2,845 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court may impose attorney's fee sanction against opposing counsel for “abusive litigation practices” only in “narrowly defined circumstances,” including where the court makes a finding that “counsel's conduct ... constituted or was tantamount to bad faith”

  3. O2 Micro Intern. v. Beyond Innov

    521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 1,215 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under Fifth Circuit law the appellants' arguments on appeal regarding claim construction were not waived even though appellants did not object to the jury instructions because the arguments were made clear to the district court and the district court did not clearly indicate that it was open to changing its claim construction

  4. General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp.

    461 U.S. 648 (1983)   Cited 525 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that some circumstances, such as a patentee's undue delay in prosecuting the lawsuit, may justify limiting or withholding prejudgment interest but noting that "prejudgment interest should be awarded under § 284 absent some justification for withholding such an award"

  5. Primus Automotive Financial Serv. v. Batarse

    115 F.3d 644 (9th Cir. 1997)   Cited 458 times
    Holding that a sanction could be upheld under a district court's inherent powers despite the court's failure to specify the source of its authority

  6. Yagman v. Republic Ins

    987 F.2d 622 (9th Cir. 1993)   Cited 497 times
    Holding that a "sanction based upon the court's inherent power [was] not sustainable" where there was "no indication in the record before us that [plaintiff acting as his own counsel] acted in bad faith or intended to mislead the court"

  7. SFA Systems, LLC v. Newegg Inc.

    793 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 139 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding party's "position on issues of law ultimately need not be correct" for such position to "be found reasonable"

  8. Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG

    318 F.3d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 160 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that general statement introducing new limitations does not limit scope of claims not amended to include the new limitations

  9. Gaymar Indus., Inc. v. Cincinnati Sub-Zero Prods., Inc.

    790 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 47 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing finding of litigation misconduct

  10. Stragent, LLC v. Intel Corp.

    Case No. 6:11-cv-421 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2014)   Cited 31 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stating that an award of attorneys' fees "in patent cases should be reserved for rare and unusual circumstances"

  11. Rule 54 - Judgment; Costs

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 54   Cited 41,187 times   141 Legal Analyses
    Holding party seeking fees may additionally seek "nontaxable expenses"

  12. Rule 52 - Findings and Conclusions by the Court; Judgment on Partial Findings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 52   Cited 26,401 times   100 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that a "reviewing court must give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge the witnesses' credibility"

  13. Rule 50 - Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 50   Cited 13,602 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Allowing "renewed motion"

  14. Section 285 - Attorney fees

    35 U.S.C. § 285   Cited 3,199 times   476 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts discretion to award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in exceptional cases