Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> Patently Obvious
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Patent Law
: Patently ObviousDistrict Court Must Provide Underlying Reasoning For "Exceptional Case" Determination
By Dennis Crouch, Esq.
Innovation Technologies v. Splash! Medical Devices (Fed. Cir. 2008)
Innovation holds a patent for washing flesh wounds (U.S. Pat. No. 5,830,197) and sued Splash for infringement. In the midst of discovery (but before a Markman hearing) Innovation decided to end the litigation and executed a covenant not to sue Splash. Before dismissing the case, the district court awarded $140k in attorney fees to the accused infringer — finding the case “exceptional” because Innovation knew or should have known “that its infringement claims were baseless.” Innovation left the district court with the impression that “the lawsuit was filed solely for the purpose of harassing a small competitor.”
In its decision, the district court provided only three sentences of legal conclusion without listing the factual basis for finding the case exceptional. [District Court Decision]
On appeal, the CAFC vacated in an opinion that reads like a reprimand. Quoting extensively from earlier opinions, the appellate panel demanded that lower court spell out the particular reasons why a case should be found exceptional:
‘“A district court must provide reasoning for its determination that a case is exceptional for us to provide meaningful review. Further, an exceptional case finding is not to be based on speculation or conjecture but upon clear and convincing evidence.” Stephens v. Tech Int’l, Inc., 393 F.3d 1269, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). . . .
This court could itself comb the record and answer those questions. That is not the normal appellate function, however, and we conclude that the proper practice here is for the district court initially to make the necessary findings on these issues. “[W]hen findings are required on the exceptional case issue such finding must initially be the province of the district court.” Consol. Aluminum Corp., v. Foseco Int’l Ltd., 910 F.2d 804, 814 (Fed. Cir. 1990). . .
Accordingly, the district court’s determination that this is an exceptional case and its award of attorneys fees are vacated, and the case is remanded to that court to make additional findings in accordance with this opinion. . . . If the court again concludes that this is an exceptional case and that it should award attorneys fees, it should also explain the reasons for the latter conclusion.
Vacated and Remanded.
Full post as published by Patently Obvious on June 16, 2008 (boomark / email).
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court): Does Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President
Heart of Atlanta v United States
Supreme Court Decision: Civil Rights Act Protected by Interstate Commerce Clause
Unwed Fathers' Rights in Adoption
Landmark Cases in Adoption Law Shape Law with respect to Unwed Fathers
Rutland School District
Double pay offered as part of class action wage dispute settlement, pending court approval.
Microsoft Corp.
allegedly failed to provide adequate access and service to Xbox Live and its subscribers.
Personal Injury
Appeals Court Upholds Congressional Legislation
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
allegedly failed to provide adequate facilities for the disabled.
Ebay Fined
French Court Sets Fine at $61 Million
Prisoner Abuse
Somerset County pays undisclosed settlement for failing to provide adequate securities for inmate assaults.

Three sentences insufficient to explain why a case is exceptional
When factual inquiries underlying obviousness determination disputed, summary judgment improper
Litigation misconduct and inequitable conduct lead to exceptional case, fees for defendant
Patentee cannot recapture claim scope disavowed during prosecution to prove infringement







