35 U.S.C. § 285

Subscribe to 35 U.S.C. § 285

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Maryellen Noreika in Mixing & Mass Transfer Technologies, LLC v. SPX Corporation et al., Civil Action No. 19-529-MN (D.Del. November 4, 2020),…
Continue Reading Judge Noreika Denies Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees in Alleged Patent Infringement Action

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Dish Network, LLC, Civil Action No. 13-02066-RGA (D.Del. November 7, 2018) (consolidated), the…
Continue Reading Judge Andrews Denies Defendants’ Motions to Declare Case “Exceptional” and Request for Attorneys’ Fees After Vacating Previous Judgments of Non-Infringement

By Memorandum and Order entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in Rothschild Mobile Imaging Innovations, LLC v. Mitek Systems, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 14-617-GMS (D.Del. July…
Continue Reading Judge Sleet Denies Prevailing Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses Against the Non-Practicing Entity and Inventor of Patents-in-Suit Plaintiff

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Reckitt Benckiser LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited et al., Civil Action No. 14-1203-LP (D.Del. October 16, 2017), the…
Continue Reading Chief Judge Stark Denies Prevailing Party’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses in ANDA Action

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Vehicle Operation Technologies LLC v. Ford Motor Company, Civil Action No. 13-539-RGA (D.Del., July 1, 2015), the Court…
Continue Reading Judge Andrews Grants Defendants’ Motion and Declares Dismissed Patent Infringement Case “Exceptional”

By Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 04-1371-LPS (D.Del., January 18, 2011), the Court granted in part and denied in part the post-trial motion of the prevailing Plaintiff, Power Integrations, Inc. (“Power”), to declare the case exceptional and to award Power treble damages and its attorneys’ fees. Specifically, the Court granted Power’s motion for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 to the extent that it enhanced Power’s damages two times (i.e. 200%) as opposed to trebling damages. Id. at 22. The Court denied Power’s motion to declare the case exceptional and to award attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Id. at 24.

Complete copies of the Court’s Opinion and Order are attached.
 Continue Reading Judge Stark Grants Prevailing Plaintiff’s Request For Enhanced Damages In Part And Denies Request For Award Of Attorneys’ Fees