An award of increased damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; 5. A judgment that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and requiring the TWC Counterclaimants to pay the costs of this action, including all disbursements and attorneys’ fees; and 6. Such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which Rembrandt and/or Remstream are justly entitled.

IV. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, ThermoLife respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendants’ Motion. Respectfully submitted, NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP, APC Dated: September 29, 2014 /s/ Tyler J. Woods By: Tyler J. Woods Attorneys for Plaintiff Case 2:12-cv-09229-GAF-FFM Document 276 Filed 09/29/14 Page 22 of 23 Page ID #:4614 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 1 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 29, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ RENEWED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 285 with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing via electronic mail to all counsel of record. /s/Tyler J Woods Tyler J Woods Case 2:12-cv-09229-GAF-FFM Document 276 Filed 09/29/14 Page 23 of 23 Page ID #:4615

PAGE 9 -- PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DECLARE THIS AN EXCEPTIONAL CASE AND TO AWARD ATTORNEY FEES UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 285 Case 3:04-cv-00029-MO Document 520 Filed 07/28/08 Page 13 of 14 Page ID#: 6221 DATED: July 28, 2008. CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, McCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP /s/ Brenna K. Legaard Brenna K. Legaard, OSB No. 00165 Susan D. Pitchford, OSB No. 98091 Telephone: (503) 227-5631 Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs 21990162.doc PAGE 10 -- PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DECLARE THIS AN EXCEPTIONAL CASE AND TO AWARD ATTORNEY FEES UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 285 Case 3:04-cv-00029-MO Document 520 Filed 07/28/08 Page 14 of 14 Page ID#: 6222

That Apple’s relief requested in its Complaint is granted; F. That Motorola be declared to have infringed, directly and/or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, induced infringement, and/or contributed to the infringement of one or more claims of each of the ’949, ’002, and ’315 patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271; G. That the ’949, ’002, and ’315 patents are valid ande forceable; H. That pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and/or other applicab e laws, Motorola’s conduct be found to render this an exceptional caseand that Apple be awarded its attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with this action; I. That Apple be awarded its cost of suit incurred herein; J. That Apple be awarded such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

This Honorable Court‟s objective review of the entire file and careful analysis and discrete findings will determine that Plaintiffs and counsel commenced this infringement claim in good faith and their actions are not deserving of sanctions. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that Defendant JAKKS‟ Motion for Sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 and Supplemental Motion for Attorneys Fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1927 and 1961 be denied. This case does not present the type of exceptionally egregious conduct warranting sanctions or the award of attorneys‟ fees.

I thus decline to find 7 Case 1:11-cv-06604-CM-RLE Document 203 Filed 08/28/15 Page 7 of 17 that A VT pressed forward with these lawsuits in bad faith, and refuse to impose "inherent power" or§ 1927 sanctions. Under § 285, however, the matter is different. Applying the Supreme Court's Octane Fitness ruling, this case is exceptional.

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 12(b)(6) AND 12(b)(7) AND FOR ATTORNEY FEES UNDER 35 USC § 285 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on April 30, 2015, I served or caused to be served a true and complete copy of the foregoing REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS RULE 12(B)(6) AND 12(B)(7) AND FOR ATTORNEY FEES UNDER 35 USC § 285 on the party or parties listed below as follows:
Via CM / ECF Filing  Via First Class Mail, Postage Prepaid  Via Email  Via Personal Delivery Megan I. Livermore Gaydos Churnside & Balthrop, PC 440 East Broadway, Suite 300 Eugene, OR 97401 Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs Albert P. Allan, Pro Hac Vice Allan Law Firm, PLLC 409 East Boulevard Suite 201 Charlotte, NC 28203 Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs HARRANG LONG GARY RUDNICK P.C. Andrea D. Coit, OSB #002640 BATEMAN IP

It is because of the absence of a support beam extending to the distal end, and the absence of a plurality of screw holes formed along the length of the second end as described in the ‘609 patent claims 8 and 16, that Smith testified that the Umounts device was missing the second end described in claims 8 and 16. See Trl. Trans. at p. 399, lines 20-25. These additional instances of bad faith and misconduct by Plaintiff at trial should be considered among the totality of the circumstances in awarding Z Keepers its fees under section 285 of the Patent Act. IV. FEES AND COSTS INCURRED BY Z KEEPERS. A. Evaluating the reasonableness of costs and fees. The taxing of costs is to be made in accord with statute 28 U.S.C. § 1920. “In dealing with items of cost incurred and a determination of which items should be allowed, the issue is one of Case 8:16-cv-01067-JSS Document 168 Filed 10/22/18 Page 23 of 26 PageID 3222 24 discretion [and] the burden is upon the losing party to show the impropriety of an allowance." Bolt v. Halifax Hosp. Med. Ctr., No. 82-122-Orl-CIV-18, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24414, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 11, 1984).

1 requests that Oplus counsel be held jointly and severally liable with Oplus for its conduct in this case. V. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, VIZIO respectfully requests that this Court grant VIZIO’s Motion and award VIZIO the attorneys’ fees and expenses it incurred in being forced to deal with Oplus’ impermissible forum shopping and filing of a frivolous and objectively baseless litigation against Sears in this action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the Court’s inherent power. Dated: April 1, 2014 /s/ Adrian M. Pruetz Adrian M. Pruetz apruetz@glaserweil.com GLASER WEIL FINK JACOBS HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP 10250 Constellation Blvd., 19th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-282-6250 Fax: 310-282-3550 Counsel for Defendant VIZIO, Inc.

Respectfully submitted, Dated: November 11, 2011 /s/ Brian J. Sodikoff Robert B. Breisblatt Brian J. Sodikoff Martin S. Masar III KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP 525 West Monroe Street Chicago, Illinois 60661-3693 Phone: (312) 902-5200 Howard Langer LANGER GROGRAN & DIVER, P.C. 1717 Arch Street, Suite 4130 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 320-5661 Attorneys for Apotex, Inc. Case 2:06-cv-02768-MSG Document 519 Filed 11/11/11 Page 13 of 14 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ) APOTEX, INC., ) ) Plaintiff ) ) CIVIL ACTION v. ) ) No. 2:06-cv-2768-MSG CEPHALON, INC., et al. ) ) Defendants ) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 11, 2011, a copy of APOTEX, INC.’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DECLARE THIS AN EXCEPTIONAL CASE AND FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 285 AND FRCP 54(d)(2) was served via the Court’s ECF system. Dated: November 11, 2011 /s/ Brian J. Sodikoff Robert B. Breisblatt Brian J. Sodikoff Martin S. Masar III KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP 525 West Monroe Street Chicago, Illinois 60661-3693 Phone: (312) 902-5200 Howard Langer LANGER GROGRAN & DIVER, P.C. 1717 Arch Street, Suite 4130 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 320-5661 Attorneys for Apotex, Inc.