Digest of Oplus Techs., Ltd. v. Vizio, Inc., No. 2014-1297 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 10, 2015).(precedential). On appeal from C.D. Cal. Before Prost, Moore, and O’Malley.
Procedural Posture: Accused infringer Vizio, Inc., who had previously successfully moved for summary judgment of noninfringement of the asserted patents, appealed from the District Court’s denial of attorneys’ and expert witness fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the court’s inherent power. CAFC vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
- Attorneys’ Fees: The CAFC found that while the District Court’s opinion detailed an egregious pattern of misconduct on the part of patentee Oplus, including discovery abuses, unprofessionalism, and changing litigation positions, and concluded that the case was exceptional, the District Court did not sufficiently articulate the reasons for its decision not to grant attorneys’ fees. The CAFC vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s recently-issued opinion inOctane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1749 (2014), which it noted considerably lowered the standard for awarding fees.