§Why CasetextPricing

Lumen View Technology LLC v. Findthebest.com, Inc

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 59 MOTION for Attorney Fees NOTICE OF MOTION FOR DECLARATION OF EXCEPTIONAL CASE AND AWARD OF FEES AND NONTAXABLE EXPENSES.. Document

11 Cited authorities

  1. In re Seagate Technology

    497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 791 times   86 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an "advice of counsel" defense to willful infringement does not waive the attorney-client privilege as to trial counsel partly because post-filing conduct is usually not relevant to a finding of willful infringement

  2. Forest Laboratories v. Abbott Laboratories

    339 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 178 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a patentee's bad-faith business conduct toward an accused infringer prior to litigation," although leading to a finding of equitable estoppel, could not make a case exceptional under Section 285

  3. iLOR, LLC v. Google, Inc.

    631 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 105 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim construction argument not precluded by claim language was proffered in good faith

  4. Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc.

    687 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 71 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the purpose of § 285 is to reimburse the alleged infringer for defending an action improperly brought, or prolonged in bad faith

  5. Machinery Corp. of America v. Gullfiber AB

    774 F.2d 467 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 140 times
    Stating that in order to show case is exceptional, movant must prove actual wrongful intent or gross negligence, i.e., conduct short of fraud but in excess of simple negligence

  6. Eltech Systems Corp. v. PPG Industries, Inc.

    903 F.2d 805 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 115 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding exceptional case based on total lack of evidence to show infringement

  7. Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Newegg, Inc.

    Case No. 8:12-cv-01688-ODW(MRWx) (C.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2013)   Cited 5 times

    Case No. 8:12-cv-01688-ODW(MRWx) 2013-10-11 DIGITECH IMAGE TECHNOLOGIES., LLC, Plaintiff, v. NEWEGG, INC. and NEWEGG.COM, INC., Defendants. OTIS D. WRIGHT, II ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES [41] I. INTRODUCTION Newegg moves for an award of attorneys' fees and costs incurred defending against Digitech's patent-infringement suit. (ECF No. 41.) Newegg argues that Digitech's infringement allegations were objectively baseless and brought in bad faith to obtain nuisance-value settlements

  8. Kilopass Tech., Inc. v. Sidense Corp.

    2013-1193 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 26, 2013)   Cited 1 times   2 Legal Analyses

    2013-1193 12-26-2013 KILOPASS TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SIDENSE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. DARALYN J. DURIE, Durie Tangri, LLP, of San Francisco, California, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With her on the brief was EUGENE NOVIKOV. ROGER L. COOK, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP, of San Francisco, California, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were ROBERT D. TADLOCK and SARA B. GIARDINA. Of counsel on the brief was JOSHUA H. LEE, of Atlanta, Georgia. O'MALLEY

  9. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,391 times   2188 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  10. Section 285 - Attorney fees

    35 U.S.C. § 285   Cited 3,195 times   475 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts discretion to award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in exceptional cases

  11. Section 299 - Joinder of parties

    35 U.S.C. § 299   Cited 140 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Limiting the joinder of accused infringers in patent cases