1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Absence of Findings Requires Reversal of "Exceptional Case" Determination

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.

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.15.25

Senate Finance Committee Looking to Take White River to the Train Station, Confirms DOJ Investigation into Tribal Tax Credits

On August 19, 2025, the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance (“Senate Finance Committee”) sent Paul Atkins, Chairman, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) a letter calling on the SEC to investigate White River Energy Corp (“White River”). In the letter, the Senate Finance Committee confirmed a criminal investigation into White River related to the sale of so-called “tribal tax credits” that according to both Congress and the IRS, do not exist. The letter further states that White River allegedly earned millions of dollars selling these credits and has not been forthcoming with investors regarding the existence of the criminal investigation. According to the Senate Finance Committee, White River has failed to file financial disclosure documents with the SEC since March 15, 2024, missing six consecutive reporting periods. The letter instructs White River to disclose the existence of the DOJ criminal tax investigation, and calls on the SEC to take action if White River fails to do so....