32 Cited authorities

Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.
572 U.S. 545 (2014) Cited 1,451 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"
Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.
510 U.S. 517 (1994) Cited 2,893 times 30 Legal Analyses
Holding that under the Copyright Act fee-shifting statute, 17 U.S.C. § 505, defendants and plaintiffs are to be treated the same, contrary to the Court's interpretation of § 1988
Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc.
572 U.S. 559 (2014) Cited 341 times 41 Legal Analyses
Holding that a district court "abuse its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law" (quoting Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. , 496 U.S. 384, 405, 110 S. Ct. 2447, 2461, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990) )
Welch v. Metropolitan Life
480 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 972 times
Holding district court on remand could reduce requested rates based on "evidence that undermines the reasonableness of the rate requested" although the party opposing the request for fees had not previously introduced any evidence undermining requested rates
Net Moneyin v. Verisign
545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 279 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to anticipate, a single prior art reference must not only disclose all the limitations claimed but also must disclose those limitations "arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim"
Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc.
645 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 201 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding a party must have "intended to impair the ability" of a litigant to put on a case or defend itself to find "bad faith" (quoting Schmid , 13 F.3d at 80 )
Sulzer Textil A.G. v. Picanol N.V
358 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 141 times
Finding party's claims non-frivolous when they survived prevailing party's motion for summary judgment
Hall v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.
705 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2013) Cited 101 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding party did not waive preemption argument by failing to raise it in its Rule 12(b) motion because "waiver is generally inapplicable to ‘significant questions of general impact or of great public concern.’ " (quoting Interactive Gift , 256 F.3d at 1345 )
iLOR, LLC v. Google, Inc.
631 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 106 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that claim construction argument not precluded by claim language was proffered in good faith
Taurus IP, LLC v. Daimlerchrysler Corp.
726 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2013) Cited 96 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that case was exceptional where losing party filed multiple, repetitive motions and continued to litigate a position they already lost in court
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 161,761 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Rule 11 - Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 Cited 36,947 times 148 Legal Analyses
Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney
Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty
35 U.S.C. § 102 Cited 5,984 times 997 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"
Section 285 - Attorney fees
35 U.S.C. § 285 Cited 3,245 times 487 Legal Analyses
Granting district courts discretion to award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in exceptional cases

ThermoLife International LLC v. Better Body Sports LLC et al

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 that under the Copyright Act fee-shifting statute, 17 U.S.C. § 505, defendants and plaintiffs are to be treated the same, contrary to the Court's interpretation of § 1988

Holding that a district court "abuse its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law" (quoting Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. , 496 U.S. 384, 405, 110 S. Ct. 2447, 2461, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990) )

Holding district court on remand could reduce requested rates based on "evidence that undermines the reasonableness of the rate requested" although the party opposing the request for fees had not previously introduced any evidence undermining requested rates

Holding that, to anticipate, a single prior art reference must not only disclose all the limitations claimed but also must disclose those limitations "arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim"

Holding a party must have "intended to impair the ability" of a litigant to put on a case or defend itself to find "bad faith" (quoting Schmid , 13 F.3d at 80 )

Finding party's claims non-frivolous when they survived prevailing party's motion for summary judgment

Holding party did not waive preemption argument by failing to raise it in its Rule 12(b) motion because "waiver is generally inapplicable to ‘significant questions of general impact or of great public concern.’ " (quoting Interactive Gift , 256 F.3d at 1345 )

Holding that claim construction argument not precluded by claim language was proffered in good faith

Holding that case was exceptional where losing party filed multiple, repetitive motions and continued to litigate a position they already lost in court

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney

Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

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