Blog June 11, 2018
Minnesota Patent Litigation Wrap-Up — September 2017
- Person title
This post continues our monthly summary of patent litigation in the District of Minnesota, including short summaries of substantive orders issued in pending cases.
In September 2017, there was one notable decision for pending cases.
Superior Indus., LLC v. Masaba, Inc., No. 10-cv-764 (September 13, 2017) (Frank)
- 285 Motion for Fees: Denied
Superior brought suit against Masaba, claiming that Masaba infringed upon a series of Superior's patents through the sale of truck unloaders and telescoping conveyors. In 2012, the district court construed various terms of Superior's patents, and Superior conceded it could not prove infringement under the court's constructions. Superior appealed the Markman order to the Federal Circuit, and the Federal Circuit remanded the case in 2014 with instructions that the district court further provide a factual context to the disputed constructions so that the Federal Circuit could determine their impact on the infringement analysis.
The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement, and Superior again appealed but was ultimately unsuccessful as the Federal Circuit affirmed the claim construction and summary judgment findings. Masaba then sought its fees, alleging that Superior's claim construction and infringement positions were exceptionally weak, that Superior failed to perform adequate pre-suit investigations, and that Superior engaged in litigation misconduct.
As to the claim construction and infringement positions, Judge Frank concluded that even though he and the Federal Circuit ultimately rejected Superior's positions, they were not "unreasonably" weak so as to merit a fees award. Further, Judge Frank noted that "fee awards are not to be used as a penalty for failure to win a patent infringement suit." Judge Frank similarly found that Masaba's allegations concerning pre-suit diligence and litigation misconduct were insufficient to establish that the case was "exceptional."
The opinions expressed are those of the authors on the date noted above and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fish & Richardson P.C., any other of its lawyers, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This post is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed.
Blog April 23, 2018
Minnesota Patent Litigation Wrap-Up — March 2018
Blog March 7, 2018
Minnesota Patent Litigation Wrap-Up — February 2018
Blog December 12, 2017
Minnesota Patent Litigation Wrap-Up — November 2017
Blog November 7, 2017
Minnesota Patent Litigation Wrap-Up — October 2017
Blog September 5, 2017
Minnesota Patent Litigation Wrap-Up — August 2017
Blog August 9, 2017
Minnesota Patent Litigation Wrap-Up — July 2017
Blog July 14, 2017
Minnesota Patent Litigation Wrap-Up — June 2017
Blog June 6, 2017
Minnesota Patent Litigation Wrap-Up — May 2017
Blog April 7, 2017
Minnesota Patent Litigation Wrap-Up — March 2017
Blog March 2, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: February 2023
Blog February 10, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: January 2023
Blog February 7, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: January 2023
Blog January 17, 2023
Minnesota Patent Litigation Wrap-Up: Q4 2022
Blog January 17, 2023
Biosimilars 2022 Year in Review
Blog January 4, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: December 2022
Article December 27, 2022
Senior Principal John Dragseth Authors IPWatchdog Article "Top Federal Circuit Decisions of 2022 That No One Told You About"
Article December 9, 2022
Attorneys Adam Shartzer and Josh Carrigan Author Law360 Expert Analysis "Patent Fee-Shifting Often Leaves Prevailing Parties Unpaid"
Blog November 1, 2022
Limelight v. Akamai: A software case worthy of biotech's attention
Article October 20, 2022