U.S. Code » Title 35 » Part PART III— PATENTS AND PROTECTION OF PATENT RIGHTS › Chapter CHAPTER 29— REMEDIES FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT, AND OTHER ACTIONS

35 U.S.C. § 285

Attorney fees

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 35 CasesGoogle Scholar

The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2,143 cases (380 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: High. Equip. Co., Inc., Plaintiff-Cross v. Feco, Ltd. & Stan Duncalf, 469 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
High. Equip. Co., Inc., Plaintiff-Cross v. Feco, Ltd. & Stan Duncalf, 469 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2006). · cites it 24× “’s (“Highway Equipment”) summary judgment on FECO’s claim for wrongful termination of dealership and denying FECO’s motion for attorney fees and expenses pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 . Highway Equipment cross-appeals from the ruling that the district court had subject matter…”
Advanced Magnetic Closures, Inc. v. Rome Fastener Corp., 607 F.3d 817 (Fed. Cir. 2010). · cites it 24× “The district court subsequently assessed attorney’s fees and costs against AMC under 35 U.S.C. § 285 based on (1) the ’773 patent applicants’ inequitable *Randall R.”
Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 866 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2017). · cites it 16× “1 Romag sought attorney’s fees under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 285 , Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117 (a), and CUTPA.”
Special Devices, Inc. v. Oea, Inc., 269 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2001). · cites it 11× “The district court granted the motion, deeming the case exceptional within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 . 1 Special Devices II at 1180.”
Kilopass Tech., Inc. v. Sidense Corp., 738 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2013). · cites it 19× “While that appeal was pending, Sidense filed a motion in the district court seeking an award of attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 , which the district court denied.”
Taurus IP, LLC v. Daimlerchrysler Corp., 726 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2013). · cites it 12× “Subsequently, in a decision dated June 3, 2008, the district court found the Daimler-Chrysler Patent Suit to be exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 . See Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.”
ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 560 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2009). · cites it 18× “05 in attorney's fees, under 35 U.S.C. § 285 , against Appellants jointly and severally; and d.”
Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 687 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012). · cites it 14× “(“Allcare”) appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas finding this case excep- tional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding attorneys’ fees and costs to Highmark, Inc.”
Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Rambus Inc., 440 F. Supp. 2d 495 (E.D. Va. 2006). · cites it 13× “(“Ram-bus”), under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and the Court’s inherent power.”
Nilssen v. Osram Sylvania, Inc., 528 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008). · cites it 16× “(collectively “Osram”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 . Nilssen v. Osram Sylvania, Inc.”
Ipxl Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005). · cites it 7× “Finding that the case was “exceptional,” the district court awarded Amazon attorney fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285 . Because we agree that claims 1, 2, 9, 15 and 25 are invalid, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on invalidity and need not reach its…”
Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC v. Guardian Prot. Servs., Inc., 858 F.3d 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017). · cites it 8× “District Court for the East- ern District of Texas (“District Court”) denying ADS’s request for attorney fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 (2012). See Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC v.”
Show all 2,143 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.