{"id":2322,"date":"2018-12-14T20:36:17","date_gmt":"2018-12-15T01:36:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2322"},"modified":"2018-12-16T21:21:30","modified_gmt":"2018-12-17T02:21:30","slug":"exceptional-does-not-mean-wrong-otherwise-every-case-would-be-exceptional","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2322","title":{"rendered":"Exceptional Does Not Mean “Wrong” — Otherwise Every Case Would be Exceptional"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In Spineology Inc. v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc.<\/a>, [2018-1276] (December 14, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of\u00a0Wright Medical Technology, Inc.’s motion for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 285, finding no abuse of discretion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The district court issued a claim construction order in, acknowledging that the parties\u00a0disputed construction of the term \u201cbody,\u201d but it declined to
adopt either party\u2019s construction. Wright and Spineology\u00a0then filed cross-motions for summary judgment on infringement.\u00a0\u00a0Recognizing the alleged infringement depended\u00a0on how \u201cbody\u201d was construed, the district court
construed \u201cbody\u201d consistent with Wright\u2019s noninfringement\u00a0position and granted Wright\u2019s motion.\u00a0\u00a0Wright then moved for attorney fees, arguing Spineology\u2019s\u00a0proposed construction of \u201cbody,\u201d its damages\u00a0theories, and its litigation conduct rendered this case\u00a0\u201cexceptional\u201d under \u00a7 285. The district court denied the\u00a0motion, determining that, while ultimately the court rejected Spineology\u2019s proposed construction, it was not so meritless as to render the case exceptional.\u00a0 It similarly determined the arguments
made by Spineology to support its damages theory were\u00a0not so meritless as to render the case exceptional.\u00a0 The district court concluded that n]othing about this case stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of\u00a0Spineology\u2019s litigating position or the manner in which
the case was litigated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that, while Spineology\u2019s proposed construction of \u201cbody\u201d was ultimately rejected\u00a0at summary judgment, the attempt was not so\u00a0meritless as to render the case exceptional.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit stressed that a party\u2019s position ultimately need\u00a0not be correct for them not to standout.\u00a0 \u00a0The Federal Circuit noted that Wright was hardly in a position to complain about Spineology’s continuing\u00a0to pursue a construction not adopted by the district\u00a0court in the claim construction order, since the district\u00a0court declined to adopt Wright\u2019s proposed construction as\u00a0well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even though the case was resolved in summary judgment, Wright complained about Spineology’s damages theory,.\u00a0 While conceding that perhaps Spineology\u2019s damages theories would not have\u00a0prevailed, the Federal Circuit said \u201ca strong or even correct litigating position\u00a0is not the standard by which we assess exceptionality.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Circuit noted that Wright was asking the court to basically decide the damages\u00a0issues mooted by summary judgment in order to determine\u00a0whether it ought to obtain attorney fees for the\u00a0entire litigation. The Federal Circuit refused to do so — it will not force\u00a0the district court, on a motion for attorney fees, to conduct\u00a0the trial it never had, and the Federal Circuit declined to conduct the trial in the first instance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The bottom line is exceptional\u00a0 does not mean “wrong” — otherwise every case would be exceptional.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Spineology Inc. v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc., [2018-1276] (December 14, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of\u00a0Wright Medical Technology, Inc.’s motion for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 285, finding no abuse of discretion. The district court issued … 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-2322","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\/2322","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=2322"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2322\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2323,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2322\/revisions\/2323"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2322"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2322"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2322"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}