Digest of GAYMAR INDUSTRIES, INC. V. CINCINNATI SUB-ZERO PRODUCTS, No. 2014-1174 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2015) (precedential). On appeal from W.D.N.Y. Before Prost, Bryson, and Dyk.

Procedural Posture: Defendant appealed the district court’s denial of attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. CAFC affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

  • Attorney’s fees: The defendant failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiff’s position was objectively baseless solely based on the plaintiff’s apparent knowledge of prior art. The district court did not err in denying attorney’s fees for the defendant, as attorney’s fees are not to be used as a punishment for failing to win a patent infringement case.
  • Attorney’s fees/Unclean hands: The district court’s findings of litigation misconduct by the defendant were clearly erroneous in determining if the case “stands out from others.” The Federal Circuit suggested that the alleged inconsistencies in the defendant’s arguments were better characterized as overstatements, and that “bad lawyering” did not amount to misconduct.