{"id":1486,"date":"2017-03-17T21:36:22","date_gmt":"2017-03-18T01:36:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1486"},"modified":"2017-03-25T21:38:54","modified_gmt":"2017-03-26T01:38:54","slug":"an-objectively-reasonable-case-can-still-be-exceptional","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1486","title":{"rendered":"An Objectively Reasonable Case Can Still be Exceptional"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Bayer Cropscience AG v. Dow Agriscience LLC, [2015-1854]<\/a>\u00a0(March 17, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed affirmed the award of attorneys\u2019 fees under 35 USC 285 to Dow, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the case exceptional.<\/p>\n

In its decision awarding attorney fees, the district judge found that Bayer\u2019s arguments were \u201cfallacious\u201d because they were \u201cimplausible\u201d and \u201cmade no business sense\u201d in light of the facts surrounding the agreements and their negotiation.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit noted the conflicting testimony of one of Bayer\u2019s executives, and inconsistent emails to Bayer\u2019s position that Dow was not licensed to commercially exploit Bayer\u2019s genetically modified soybeans.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit noted that abuse of discretion is a highly deferential standard.\u00a0 It said that the district court applied the correct legal test under \u00a7 285, examining the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the case stood out from others. The Federal Circuit found that the district court\u2019s opinion thoroughly demonstrated the totality-of-the circumstances approach, detailing the reasons why Bayer\u2019s positions on the merits and litigation tactics coalesced in making this case, in its judgment, exceptional.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit rejected the argument that Bayer had an objectively reasonable case on the merits, noting that Octane Fitness<\/em> established that whether a party\u2019s merits position was objectively reasonable is not dispositiveunder \u00a7 285. The Federal Circuit noted that the district court considered factors beyond the\u00a0merits\u2014including Bayer\u2019s litigation conduct\u2014and emphasized that Bayer\u2019s conduct in litigating this case in the face of evidence that contradicted its contorted reading\u00a0of the Agreement was objectively unreasonable.\u00a0 In the words of the district court \u201cBayer marched onward with a view of its case that was not supported by its witnesses.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit\u00a0 approved pre-suit diligence as a factor in the totality-of the-circumstance approach, and found that the district court did not abuse its discretion\u00a0in concluding that Bayer failed to perform a diligent presuit investigation of its claims against Dow.\u00a0 Rejecting Bayer\u2019s other arguments, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Bayer Cropscience AG v. Dow Agriscience LLC, [2015-1854]\u00a0(March 17, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed affirmed the award of attorneys\u2019 fees under 35 USC 285 to Dow, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[44],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1486","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-attorneys-fees"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1486","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1486"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1486\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1488,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1486\/revisions\/1488"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1486"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1486"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1486"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}