{"id":2858,"date":"2020-06-08T22:32:09","date_gmt":"2020-06-09T03:32:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2858"},"modified":"2020-07-19T18:14:06","modified_gmt":"2020-07-19T23:14:06","slug":"a-clear-explanation-of-reasons-needed-for-a-fee-award","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2858","title":{"rendered":"A Clear Explanation of Reasons Needed for a Fee Award"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>In <a href=\"http:\/\/www.cafc.uscourts.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/opinions-orders\/19-1454.OPINION.6-8-2020_1600475.pdf\">Munchkin, Inc. v. Luv N&#8217; Care, Ltd.<\/a>, [2019-1454] (June 8 2020), the Federal Circuit vacated the award of attorneys fees under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 285 and 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 1117(a) after Munchin\u2019s dismissal of its patent claims after losing an IPR, and its voluntary dismissal of its non-patent claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Federal Circuit said it generally gives great deference to a district court\u2019s exceptional-case determination, a district court nonetheless must provide a concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the fee award.  However when the bases of an attorney\u2019s fee motion rest on issues that had not been meaningfully considered by the district court, a fuller explanation of the court\u2019s assessment of a litigant\u2019s position may well be needed when a district court focuses on a freshly considered issue than one that has already been fully litigated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Federal Circuit said that none of these issues was fully adjudicated before the court on the merits, and given the limited arguments Luv N&#8217; Care made in support of its fee motion, it held that the district court abused its discretion in granting the motion and reversed the exceptional-case determination.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In Munchkin, Inc. v. Luv N&#8217; Care, Ltd., [2019-1454] (June 8 2020), the Federal Circuit vacated the award of attorneys fees under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 285 and 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 1117(a) after Munchin\u2019s dismissal of its patent claims after losing &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2858\">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":[44],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2858","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\/2858","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=2858"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2858\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2859,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2858\/revisions\/2859"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2858"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2858"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2858"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}