NOVA Chems. Corp. v. Dow Chem. Co.

10 Citing cases

  1. Extremity Med. v. Nextremity Sols.

    Civil Action 22-239-GBW (D. Del. Oct. 3, 2024)

    Thus, where a court is presented with evidence that a pre-suit investigation was conducted and that the plaintiff held a good faith belief in its claim prior to filing its case, the court is likely to find that the case was litigated reasonably even where the plaintiff did not ultimately prevail. See NOVA Chemicals Corp. v. Dow Chern. Co.,No. CV 13-1601, 2015 WL 5766257, at *4 (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2015), affd sub nom. Nova Chemicals Corp. (Canada) v. Dow Chern. Co., 856 F.3d 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“NOVA has put forth a great deal of evidence in the form of declarations describing its pre-suit investigation, which shows that NOVA understood the seriousness of the claims it was making, and in recognition of that fact took extra precautions to have the complaint reviewed independently before it was filed. NOVA has, thus, shown that it had a good faith belief that there was a reasonable basis on which to proceed with the independent suit.”)

  2. Mosaic Brands, Inc. v. Ridge Wallet LLC

    55 F.4th 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2022)   Cited 12 times

    While it was well within the District Court's discretion to consider inequitable conduct in connection with Mosaic's motion to recover attorney's fees, the District Court likewise had discretion to refrain from addressing any issues solely related to § 285 until after completion of any appeals from a final judgment on other issues. See, e.g., Nova Chems. Corp. (Canada) v. Dow Chem. Co. , 856 F.3d 1012, 1015-16 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ; iLOR, LLC v. Google, Inc. , 631 F.3d 1372, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The Court entered final judgment of no liability for both Mosaic and Ridge.

  3. Mosaic Brands, Inc. v. The Ridge Wallet LLC

    No. 2022-1001 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2022)

    While it was well within the District Court's discretion to consider inequitable conduct in connection with Mosaic's motion to recover attorney's fees, the District Court likewise had discretion to refrain from addressing any issues solely related to § 285 until after completion of any appeals from a final judgment on other issues. See, e.g., Nova Chems. Corp. (Canada) v. Dow Chem. Co., 856 F.3d 1012, 1015-16 (Fed. Cir. 2017); iLOR, LLC v. Google, Inc., 631 F.3d 1372, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

  4. Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc.

    866 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 32 times
    Concluding "the Second Circuit would hold that, in light of Octane, the Lanham Act should have the same standard for recovering attorney's fees as the Patent Act."

    Fees may be awarded under 35 U.S.C. § 285 if a party's arguments are objectively unreasonable or if the case was litigated in bad faith. Octane , 134 S.Ct. at 1756 ; Nova Chem. Corp. (Canada) v. Dow Chems. Co. , 856 F.3d 1012, 1016–17 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Whether a case is exceptional is viewed under the totality of the circumstances of the case, Octane , 134 S.Ct. at 1756, for which we defer to the district court's judgment under abuse of discretion review, Highmark , 134 S.Ct. at 1749.

  5. Lanard Toys Ltd. v. Dolgencorp, LLC

    3:15-cv-849-MMH-PDB (M.D. Fla. Aug. 20, 2021)

    They do, however, provide examples of decisions in which courts have acted within their discretion and outside of their discretion and the circumstances they have considered relevant. Cf. Nova Chems. Corp. (Canada) v. Dow Chem. Co., 856 F.3d 1012, 1018 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (observing in the patent context that “[o]ne could always search for more similar cases for comparison. Taken to its logical conclusion, continuing to narrow the universe of comparators to cases resolved on similar procedural postures, legal grounds, or facts would leave few or no comparators remaining”)

  6. AbCellera Biologics Inc. v. Berkeley Lights, Inc.

    20-cv-08624-LHK (VKD) (N.D. Cal. Jul. 30, 2021)

    To the extent Berkeley Lights suggests that information relating to Plaintiffs' pre-suit investigation is relevant and discoverable as a matter of course whenever a party invokes 35 U.S.C. § 285, the Court disagrees with that proposition. See Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545, 554 (2014) (“[A]n ‘exceptional' case is simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigating position (considering both the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated.”) (emphasis added); Nova Chemicals Corp. (Canada) v. Dow Chem. Co., 856 F.3d 1012, 1018 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“We agree, as a general matter, that the extent of a party's pre-suit investigation or how fervently it believed in its allegations does not affect the objective strength of that party's litigating position.”). Rather, Berkeley Lights must articulate some justification for why the requested discovery is relevant to its claim that Plaintiffs' litigating position or conduct in the litigation renders these cases “exceptional.”

  7. Recovery Fund II U.S. LLC v. Rabobank

    C.A. No. 18-2039-MN-JLH (D. Del. May. 29, 2020)

    Practice Litig. Agent Actions, 278 F.3d 175, 188 (3d Cir. 2002); NOVA Chemicals Corp. v. Dow Chem. Co., No. 13-1601, 2015 WL 5766257, at *4 (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2015), aff'd sub nom. Nova Chemicals Corp. (Canada) v. Dow Chem. Co., 856 F.3d 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Indications of bad faith "'are findings that the claims were meritless, that counsel knew or should have known this, and that the motive for filing suit was for an improper purpose such as harassment.'"

  8. Reckitt Benckiser LLC v. Amneal Pharm.

    Civil No. 15-2155 (RMB/JS) (D.N.J. Oct. 25, 2019)

    " 35 U.S.C. § 285. "An exceptional case under § 285 is 'simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigating position (considering both the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated.'" Nova Chems. Corp. (Canada) v. Dow Chem. Co., 856 F.3d 1012, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2017)(quoting Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545, 554 (2014)). Ultimately, the Court must make a discretionary decision based on the totality of circumstances, which may include factors such as "frivolousness, motivation, objective unreasonableness (both in the factual and legal components of the case) and the need in particular circumstances to advance considerations of compensation and deterrence.

  9. Quest Licensing Corp. v. Bloomberg L.P.

    C.A. No. 14-561-LPS CONSOLIDATED (D. Del. Mar. 27, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    "An exceptional case under § 285 is 'simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigating position (considering both the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated.'" Nova Chems. Corp. (Canada) v. Dow Chem. Co., 856 F.3d 1012, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749, 1756 (2014)). "While an adverse claim construction generally cannot, alone, form the basis for an exceptional case finding, . . . a party cannot assert baseless infringement claims and must continually assess the soundness of pending infringement claims, especially after an adverse claim construction."

  10. Reckitt Benckiser LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd.

    C.A. No. 14-1203-LPS (D. Del. Oct. 16, 2017)   Cited 4 times
    Denying § 285 motion notwithstanding "rare occurrence" of ANDA patent case being resolved on summary judgment

    "An exceptional case under § 285 is 'simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigating position (considering both the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated.'" Nova Chems. Corp. (Canada) v. Dow Chem. Co., 856 F.3d 1012, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749, 1756 (2014)). Ultimately, the Court must make a discretionary decision based on the totality of circumstances, which may include factors such as "frivolousness, motivation, objective unreasonableness (both in the factual and legal components of the case) and the need in particular circumstances to advance considerations of compensation and deterrence.