ATEN INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD. v. UNICLASS TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.
- Aug 6 2019 |
- Category: CAFC Updates
Uniclass and others appeal the District Court’s order denying their motion for attorney fees. Appellants argue that the district court erred in not finding this case exceptional based on ATEN’s disregard for the “foundational policy” of proportionate litigation. The CAFC notes, however, that there is no per se rule that a case is exceptional if litigation costs exceed the potential damages and that the case could have proceeded to trial requesting only an injunction, and there would be no potential damages to compare to ATEN’s expenses. Appellants also argue that the district court should have weighed the strength of ATEN’s lost profits theory (rejected at the summary judgment stage), which Appellants allege was knowingly baseless and brought in bad faith, but the CAFC found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s failure to discuss the strength of ATEN’s lost profits theory. Accordingly, the CAFC holds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to find the an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and affirms.