Hide comments

4 thoughts on “Data: Counting Fee Shifting Cases”

  1. 1

    One more data point (May 15, 2015): CAFC upheld district court’s award of fees to defendant in Action Star Enterprise Co. v. Kaijet; per curium decision under Rule 36

    1. 1.1

      And another! In another Rule 36 Judgment, the CAFC also upheld award of attorney fees (>$9ook) to Volvo in Lugus IP, LLC v. Volvo, (May 15 2015)

      Congrats to Volvo (and the judges) for not choking on the incredible amount of dust Lugus kicked up throughout its litigation.

      1. 1.1.1

        In case anyone wants to see the independent claim from this case:

        1. A adult vehicle seat in combination with a child safety seat for protecting a child while seated in a vehicle comprising an adult seat, a child safety seat, said child safety seat being part of said adult seat and having retracting means for automatically retracting said child safety seat into a portion of said adult seat to form part of a fully contoured adult seat when said child is not located in said child safety seat.

        Proof that the software people aren’t the only ones writing bad claims.

    2. 1.2

      And still one more data point!

      Meyer v. Bodum CAFC affirmed, per curium, a district court’s finding, under Octane Fitness, that Meyer’s losing patent case against Bodum was not “exceptional”; thus, no fee shifting. (14-1792)

      Judge Leinenweber’s order re the fees and inequitable conduct here: link to gpo.gov

      PatentlyO readers may remember this “foam frothing” litigation. Patentee Meyer secured an earlier victory — and fees! — which the CAFC chucked out and remanded. Subsequently a new district court judge (Leinenweber) found the claims invalid as obvious. There was a post by Jason on the CAFC’s earlier opinion that can be read here:

      link to patentlyo.com (scroll down)

      but, for whatever reason, the post no longer has its own link …?

Comments are closed.