Buergofol is correct that it was not permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to “simply fail to produce responsive documents that [it] considers to be trade secrets[,]” but the Rules do permit a party to serve objections to a request for production without ever filing for a protective order. Docket 75 at 10; see Badalamenti v. Dunham's, Inc., 896 F.2d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (explaining that “[t]he plain terms of the rules of civil procedure” give parties responding to document requests four options: (1) agree to produce the documents, (2) object to the request, (3) move for a protective order, or (4) ignore the request). Rule 37(d) allows a requesting party to move for sanctions when a party both does not respond and has not filed a motion for protective order, but that provision only applies when the resisting party serves no response at all,not when it responds with objections.

Buergofol is correct that it was not permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to “simply fail to produce responsive documents that [it] considers to be trade secrets[,]” but the Rules do permit a party to serve objections to a request for production without ever filing for a protective order. Docket 75 at 10; see Badalamenti v. Dunham's, Inc., 896 F.2d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (explaining that “[t]he plain terms of the rules of civil procedure” give parties responding to document requests four options: (1) agree to produce the documents, (2) object to the request, (3) move for a protective order, or (4) ignore the request).

The purpose of section 285, unlike that of Rule 11, is not to control the local bar's litigation practices—which the district court is better positioned to observe—but is remedial and for the purpose of compensating the prevailing party for the costs it incurred in the prosecution or defense of a case where it would be grossly unjust, based on the baselessness of the suit or because of litigation or Patent Office misconduct, to require it to bear its own costs. See Badalamenti v. Dunham's, Inc., 896 F.2d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Cent. Soya Co., Inc. v. Geo. A. Hormel & Co., 723 F.2d 1573, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1983). 1. Exceptional Case

The purpose of section 285 is to provide the district court with discretion to award fees where it would be grossly unjust that the winner be left to bear the burden of his own costs of counsel which prevailing litigants normally bear. Badalamenti v. Dunham's, Inc., 896 F.2d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "The finding of `exceptional case' is one of fact, and must be made in the first instance by the district court."

"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.