Intellectual Property Owners Association

Serving the Global Intellectual Property Community

ReadMore

2017 Attorney Fee Shifting

On 15 May, Judge GILSTRAP of the Eastern District of Texas denied the patent owner’s motion for attorney fees. Whirlpool Corporation v. Global Purification, LLC.

On 8 May, Judge ATLAS of the Southern District of Texas denied the accused infringer’s motion for attorney fees. Schoeller-Bleckman Oilfield Equipment v. Churchill Drilling Tools, LTD.

On 27 April, Judge MCMAHON of the Southern District of New York denied the accused infringer’s motion for attorney fees. Hockeyline, Inc. v. Stats, LLC.

On 26 April, Judge LOVE of the Eastern District of Texas denied the accused infringer’s motion for attorney fees. EMG Technology, LLC v. Etsy, Inc.

On 25 April, Magistrate Judge WANG of the District of Colorado denied the accused infringers’ motion for attorney fees. Brain Synergy Institute, LLC v. Ultrathera Technologies, Inc.

On 24 April, Judge MCNULTY of the District of New Jersey denied the accused infringer’s motion for attorney fees. Antonious v. Nike, Inc.

On 24 April, Judge FRIOT of the Western District of Oklahoma granted the accused infringers’ motion for attorney fees. Alzheimer’s Institute of America v. Comentis, Inc.

On 24 April, Judge WALLS of the District of New Jersey granted the accused infringers’ motion for attorney fees. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Luipold Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

On 24 April, Judge ZOBEL of the District of Massachusetts denied the patent owner’s motion for attorney fees. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc. v. Perrigo Company

On 20 April, Judge CLARK of the Eastern District of Texas denied the patent owner’s motion for attorney fees. Barry v. Medtronic, Inc.

On 18 April, Judge GRIESBACH of the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied the accused infringer’s motion for attorney fees. Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC.

On 18 April, Magistrate Judge GRAND of the District of Michigan recommended denying the accused infringer’s motion for attorney fees. SFP Works, LLC v. Buffalo Armory, LLC

On 12 April, Judge CHESLER of the District of New Jersey granted the accused infringer’s motion for attorney fees. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. v. Camber Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

On 5 April, Judge MORGAN of the Eastern District of Louisiana granted the patent owner’s motion for attorney fees. Innovation Toys, LLC v. MGA Entertainment.

On 5 April, Judge BYRON of the Middle District of Florida granted the patent owner’s motion for attorney fees. Omega Patents, LLC v. Calamp Corp.

On 4 April, Judge SAMMARTINO of the Souther District of California granted the accused infringers’ motion for attorney fees. Thermolife International, LLC v. Myogenix Corp.

On 30 March, Magistrate Judge PAYNE of the Eastern District of Texas denied the accused infringers’ motion for attorney fees. Cardsoft, Inc. v. Verifone Holdings, Inc.

On 25 March, Magistrate Judge PAYNE of the Eastern District of Texas granted the the accused infringer’s motion for attorney fees. Huang v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.

On 24 March, Judge COGAN of the Eastern District of New York denied the accused infringer’s motion for attorney fees. Auto-Kaps, LLC v. Clorox Company.

On 15 March, Judge WRIGHT ALLEN of the Eastern District of Virginia denied the accused infringer’s motion for attorney fees. Freight Tracking Technologies, LLC v. Virginia International Terminals, LLC.

On 14 March, Judge ORRICK of the Northern District of California denied the patent owner’s motion for attorney fees. Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc.

On 3 March, Judge SCHROEDER of the Eastern District of Texas denied the accused infringer’s motion for attorney fees. Telinit Technologies, LLC v. Alteva, Inc.

On 28 February, Judge HAZEL of the District of Maryland denied the accused infringers’ motion for attorney fees. Leitner-Wise v. LWRC International, LLC.

On 27 February, Judge DONATO of the Northern District of California denied the accused infringers’ motion for attorney fees. In Re Protegrity Corporation.

On 27 February, Judge MCCORMICK of the Central District of California denied the patent owner’s motion for attorney fees. Polara Engineering, Inc. v. Campbell Company.

On 22 February, Judge CHEN of the Northern District of California denied the accused infringer’s motion for attorney fees. Samuels v. Trivascular Corporation.

On 14 February, Judge SPARKS of the Western District of Texas denied the accused infringer’s motion for attorney fees. Versata Software, Inc. v. Zoho Corporation.

On 10 February, Magistrate Judge COLEof the Northern District of Illinois granted the patent owner’s motion for attorney fees. R-Boc Representatives, Inc. v. Minemyer

On 7 February, Judge WILSON of the Central District of California denied the declaratory judgement plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees. Cap Export LLC v. Zinus, Inc.

On 3 February, Judge YEAKEL of the Western District of Texas denied the accused infringer’s motion for attorney fees. Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Baxter International, Inc.

On 3 February, Judge BARRY FISCHER of the Western District of Pennsylvania denied the accused infringer’s renewed motion for attorney fees. Wonderland Nursey Goods Co. v. Thorley Industries, LLC.

On 31 January, Judge WILSON of the Eastern District of Arkansas denied the patent owner’s motion for attorney fees. John Bean Technologies Corp. v. Morris & Associates, Inc.

On 30 January, Magistrate Judge Horan of the Northern District of Texas recommended granting the patent owner’s motion for attorney fees. Richmond v. SW Closeouts, Inc.

On 26 January, Judge WILKEN of the Northern District of California granted the accused infringer’s motion for attorney fees. Technology Properties Limited LLC v. Canon, Inc.

On 25 January, Judge GILSTRAP of the Eastern District of Texas granted the accused infringer’s attorney fees. Iris Connex LLC v. Dell, Inc.

On 25 January, Magistrate Judge PAYNE of the Eastern District of Texas denied the patent owner’s motion for attorney fees. Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.

On 25 January, Judge CHEN of the Northern District of California denied the accused infringer’s motion for attorney fees. Avago Technologies General IP, Ltd. v. Asustek Computer, Inc.

On 24 January, Judge BECKWITH of the Southern District of Ohio granted the accused infringers’  motion for attorney fees. In Re: Bill of Lading Transmission and Processing System Patent Litigation.

On 23 January, Judge SETTLE of the Western District of Washington granted the accused infringer’s motion for attorney fees. Conquest Innovations LLC v. The Skylife Company.

On 23 January, Magistrate Judge LOVE of the Eastern District of Texas denied the patent owner’s motion for attorney fees. Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent Enterprise USA.

On 17 January, Judge BENCIVENGO of the Southern District of California denied the accused infringers’ motion for attorney fees. West View Research, LLC v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG.

On 13 January, Judge CHESNEY of the Northern District of California denied the patent owner’s motion for attorney fees. Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc.

On 3 January, Judge THARP of the Northern District of Illinois denied the accused infringer’s motion for attorney fees. O2 Media LLC v. Narrative Science, Inc.