On May 20, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the United States District Court for the District of Delaware’s decision to deny recovery of attorneys’ fees incurred in inter partes review proceedings (“IPRs”), as well as recovery from plaintiff’s counsel. Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC (“Dragon”) separately sued DISH Network L.L.C. (“DISH”) and Sirius XM Radio Inc. (“SXM”), as well as eight other defendants, for patent infringement in December 2013. DISH and SXM (collectively, “Appellants”) sent letters to Dragon’s counsel explaining that their products do not practice the asserted claims and that a reasonable pre-suit investigation would have shown that. Ignoring the letters, Dragon continued to pursue its lawsuits.

On November 3, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed an award of $5.2 million in attorneys’ fees entered against PersonalWeb Technologies LLC under 35 U.S.C. § 285.  In re PersonalWeb Techs. LLC, Nos. 2021-1858, 2021-1859, 2021-1860 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 3, 2023).  The court (Reyna, Dyk, and Lourie) reviewed the district court’s exceptional case determination and fee calculation for abuse of discretion.

On July 27, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision by the United States District Court for the Central District of California (C.D. Cal.) awarding fees incurred by defendant for two proceedings under its inherent equitable powers and denying fees incurred in earlier, related proceedings.  Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Netflix, Inc., Nos. 2021-1484, 2021-1485, 2021-1518, 2021-1519 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2022).  The CAFC found that the C.D. Cal. did not abuse its discretion in granting attorney’s fees incurred in the C.D. Cal. as a result of the patentee’s improper forum shopping to avoid an adverse ruling, but denying fees incurred in earlier district court and inter partes review (IPR) proceedings because there was no evidence that plaintiff knew or should have known at that time that its claims were weak.

On October 14, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota awarding attorneys’ fees on remand after it had previously found a patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.  Energy Heating, LLC v. Heat On-The-Fly, LLC, __ F.4th __ (Fed. Cir. Oct. 14, 2021).

On January 9, 2021, Judge Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted, in part, a request for attorneys’ fees to the prevailing defendant.  Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc., case no. C 17-05659 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2021).  Judge Alsup found that plaintiff’s case stood out as exceptional in certain respects and, accordingly, issued a limited award for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
 

On July 1, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion vacating and remanding the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida denying attorney fees following a judgment of patent invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Electronic Communication Techs., LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC, F.3d (Fed. Cir. July 1, 2020).
 

On June 8, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reversed an order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California (CDCA) awarding fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).  Munchkin, Inc. v. Luv N’ Care, Ltd., No. 2019-1454, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Jun. 8, 2020).  The CAFC found that the CDCA abused its discretion because the facts relied upon by the movant did not support a determination that plaintiff acted unreasonably in bringing and maintaining its case.
 

On May 1, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion affirming a grant of attorney’s fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285 by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.  Thermolife Int’l LLC et al. v. GNC Corp. et al., __ F.3d__ (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2019).  The CAFC ruled that the district court had correctly decided that the (consolidated) cases were exceptional under § 285 because plaintiffs failed to conduct an adequate pre-filing investigation and because they engaged in a pattern of bringing suit against numerous defendants without carefully reviewing their claims.