{"id":187,"date":"2015-04-10T21:38:19","date_gmt":"2015-04-11T01:38:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=187"},"modified":"2015-04-12T21:55:23","modified_gmt":"2015-04-13T01:55:23","slug":"denial-of-attorneys-fees-remanded-because-octane-lowered-considerably-the-standards-for-fee-awards","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=187","title":{"rendered":"Denial of Attorneys Fees Remanded Because Octane lowered &#8220;Considerably&#8221; the Standards for Fee Awards"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: left;\">In <em>Oplus Technologies, Ltd. v. Vizio<\/em>, [2014-1297] (April 10, 2015), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court&#8217;s decision not to award attorneys\u2019 and expert witness fees under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7285 and\u00a028 U.S.C. \u00a71927.\u00a0 The Federal noted that since the district court issued its opinion, the Supreme Court&#8217;s <em>Octane<\/em> decision\u00a0lowered Circuit\u00a0\u00a0&#8220;considerably&#8221; the standard for awarding fees, and thus the it was appropriate to vacate and remand this case in order for the district court to reconsider the propriety of awarding fees.<\/p>\n<p align=\"LEFT\">The Federal Circuit found that the district court opinion details an egregious pattern of misconduct, and that even\u00a0Oplus\u2019s counsel agreed\u00a0that the misconduct was quite severe.\u00a0\u00a0 The Federal Circuit said that although an award of fees is within the discretion of the district court, nothing in the opinion or in the record substantiates the court\u2019s decision not to award fees. Given that the district court found counsel\u2019s behavior \u201cinappropriate,\u201d \u201cunprofessional,\u201d \u201cvexatious,\u201d and \u201charassing,\u201d it is difficult to imagine how defendant\u00a0had not incurred additional expenses defending against such filings.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In Oplus Technologies, Ltd. v. Vizio, [2014-1297] (April 10, 2015), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court&#8217;s decision not to award attorneys\u2019 and expert witness fees under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7285 and\u00a028 U.S.C. \u00a71927.\u00a0 The Federal noted that since &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=187\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-187","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187","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=187"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":188,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187\/revisions\/188"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=187"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=187"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=187"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}