Absence of Findings Requires Reversal of "Exceptional Case" Determination
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.17.08
In Innovation Tech., Inc. v. Splash! Medical Devices, LLC, ( No. 2007-1424; June 16, 2008), a Federal Circuit panel reverses a district court's ruling that the accused infringer was entitled to an award of attorney fees because the patent infringement suit qualified as an "exceptional case" under section 285 of the Patent Act. The only stated basis for the award was the district court's conclusion that the patentee knew, or should have known, that its infringement claims were baseless and that "[i]t appears to me that the lawsuit was filed solely for the purpose of harassing a small competitor." More than a year after the suit had been filed, the patent owner executed a covenant not to sue the accused infringer under the patent in suit with regard to the medical device involved in the case and also moved to dismiss the case with prejudice. The motion was granted, whereupon the accused infringer sought over $140,000 in attorney fees and over $4000 in expenses. That motion was also granted.
One of the four issues raised in the district court with regard to the attorney fee application was the meaning of certain claim language. During the pendency of the case, that court had not held a Markman hearing or construed the patent claims. On one hand, says the panel, the district court was not required definitively to determine the meaning of the claims in considering whether this is an exceptional case. But, on the other hand, it was required to make a sufficient analysis of the claims' "probable meaning" to determine whether the patent owner's proposed construction of the disputed language was sufficiently plausible to justify filing the lawsuit based on that construction. Also, it is appropriate upon remand for the district court to take additional evidence and consider why the patent owner executed the covenant not to sue and dismissed the case before the claims had been construed. The district court need, however, only make findings to support those issues upon which it bases its determination, not every issue raised by the parties.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 06.05.26
The Office of Management and Budget issued on May 29, 2026 a Proposed Rule that would significantly revise the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) at 2 C.F.R. Part 200, potentially impacting the full lifecycle of federal grants, cooperative agreements and other forms of financial assistance, from pre-award merit review through post-award administration and termination. These proposed changes are designed to implement the President’s policy priorities, executive actions related to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) activities, and Executive Order No. 14332, Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking (EO 14332).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 06.04.26
EU Pay Transparency Directive: The Transposition Deadline is Looming — What Now?
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.04.26
Surveillance Pricing Update: California’s Sweeping AB 2564 Passes Assembly and Heads to Senate
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.04.26
USTR Proposes Sweeping Tariffs as Part of Section 301 Forced Labor Import Enforcement Investigation

