1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Attorney Fees Claim Permissible Even After Action Dismissed With Prejudice

Attorney Fees Claim Permissible Even After Action Dismissed With Prejudice

Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.27.06

A claim for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. 285 is properly entertained by a district court even after an action's dismissal with prejudice by that court, a Federal Circuit panel determines in Highway Equipment Company, Inc. v. FECO, Ltd. and Stan Duncalf (Nos. 05-1547, 1578, November 21, 2006). The dismissal is deemed to have the necessary judicial imprimatur to constitute a judicially sanctioned change in the legal relationship of the parties.

On the day of a final scheduled pretrial conference in a suit in federal district court involving claims of both patent infringement and violations of state law, Highway Equipment filed a covenant not to assert any claim of patent infringement under its patent, thus withdrawing the patent infringement controversy. FECO subsequently filed its motion for attorney fees and, following dismissal of its motion, FECO appealed.

The district court dismissal of the attorney fees motion is affirmed. Effects of a dismissal with prejudice of attorney fees claims under the Patent Act must be determined by Federal Circuit law in order to promote national uniformity concerning the availability of attorney fees, the Federal Circuit panel concludes. Application of regional circuit law could cause a dismissal with prejudice on such claims to vary with the regional circuit in which the case originated. There is a noted lack of uniformity among the regional circuits regarding the effect of a dismissal on the availability for attorney fees, and applying the Federal Circuit's own law is considered to ensure uniformity when patent issues are litigated. Since the facts at issue in the claim arising under the applicable state statute are insufficiently related to those in the federal counts as to form a part of the same case or controversy, however, the district court's judgment on the alleged violation of state law is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss that claim.

Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 03.26.24

California Office of Health Care Affordability Notice Requirement for Material Change Transactions Closing on or After April 1, 2024

Starting next week, on April 1st, health care entities in California closing “material change transactions” will be required to notify California’s new Office of Health Care Affordability (“OHCA”) and potentially undergo an extensive review process prior to closing. The new review process will impact a broad range of providers, payers, delivery systems, and pharmacy benefit managers with either a current California footprint or a plan to expand into the California market. While health care service plans in California are already subject to an extensive transaction approval process by the Department of Managed Health Care, other health care entities in California have not been required to file notices of transactions historically, and so the notice requirement will have a significant impact on how health care entities need to structure and close deals in California, and the timing on which closing is permitted to occur....