Id. Similarly, in Badalamenti v. Dunhams, Inc., 896 F.2d 1359, 1364-65, 13 USPQ2d 1967, 1971-72 (Fed. Cir. 1990), because the district court was silent on the exceptional case issue and fee denial, we were "unable to review the decision of the district court on this issue." Recognizing that a remand was "unfortunate", we went on to eschew any suggestion that the case be found exceptional, noting that defendant's primary basis for requesting fees had disappeared and that, even if the case be found exceptional, a denial of fees remained discretionary with the district court.

Their "discretion [is] informed by [their] familiarity with the matter in litigation and the interests of justice." Badalamenti v. Dunham's, Inc., 896 F.2d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (quotes and cite omitted). "[T]he decision respecting inequitable conduct is a discretionary decision to be made by the judge on his or her own factual findings. . . . Once threshold findings of materiality and intent are established, the court must weigh them to determine whether the equities warrant a conclusion that inequitable conduct occurred."

To put it another way, a court may find a case exceptional if the conduct of the losing party would make it grossly unjust for the prevailing party to be left with the burden of litigation expenses. Badalamenti v. Dunham's, Inc., 896 F.2d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The exceptional case inquiry is a two-step process: determining whether the case is exceptional and, if so, deciding whether to award attorney fees to the prevailing party.

"The purpose of section 285 is to provide discretion where it would be grossly unjust that the winner be left to bear the burden of his own counsel which prevailing litigants normally bear." Badalamenti v. Dunhams, Inc., 896 F.2d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (quotingJ.P. Stevens, supra, 822 F.2d at 1052) (emphasis in original). The Court does not find that defendants have demonstrated that this case is exceptional.

The purpose of 35 U.S.C. § 285 "`is to provide discretion where it would be grossly unjust that the winner be left to bear the burden of his own counsel, which prevailing litigants normally bear.'" Badalamenti v. Dunham's, Inc., 896 F.2d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (quoting J.P. Stevens Co. v. Lex Tex Ltd., 822 F.2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). Exceptional circumstances generally exist when the defendant's conduct causes an unnecessary and outcome-certain lawsuit or where the defendant displays bad faith in the pretrial and trial states of the suit.