ATTORNEY FEE SHIFTING IN PATENT SUITS IN U.S. DISTRICT COURTS: OCTOBER REPORT

//ATTORNEY FEE SHIFTING IN PATENT SUITS IN U.S. DISTRICT COURTS: OCTOBER REPORT

ATTORNEY FEE SHIFTING IN PATENT SUITS IN U.S. DISTRICT COURTS: OCTOBER REPORT

ATTORNEY FEE SHIFTING IN PATENT SUITS IN U.S. DISTRICT COURTS: OCTOBER REPORT

On September 30, Judge STARK in the District of Delaware granted the patent owner’s motion for attorney fees. NOVA Chemical Corp. v. Dow Chemical Co.

On October 1, Judge LEFKOW in the Northern District of Illinois granted in part and denied in part the accused infringer’s motion for attorney fees. In re Unified Messaging Solutions, LLC

On October 9, Judge COOPER in the District of New Jersey denied the patent owner’s motion for attorney fees. Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. v. Sandoz, Inc.

On October 16, Judge LASNIK in the Western District of Washington granted $24,822.39 in attorney fees to the accused infringer.  Enertechnix, Inc. v. Syn-fab, Inc.

On October 16, in a judgment without opinion, the Federal Circuit upheld a decision by the District of South Carolina awarding more than $283,000 in attorney fees to the accused infringer.  Pure Fishing, Inc. v. Normark Corp.

On October 21 in an opinion by Chief Judge Prost,  the Federal Circuit upheld in part an award of attorney fees to the patent owner by the District of Arizona.  Integrated Technologies Corp. v. Rudolph Technologies Inc.

On October 27, Judge GUILFORD in the Central District of California denied the accused infringer’s motion for attorney fees. Winterborne, Inc. v. FUJIFILM North America Corp.

On October 28, Judge BLAKE in the District of Maryland granted the accused infringer’s motion for attorney fees. Novartis Corp. v. Webvention Holdings LLC