Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a new response to a petition raising questions relating to attorneys’ fees and the denial of a petition challenging the International Trade Commission’s authority related to patent infringement. Here are the details.
Response
There is one new response in a pending petition.
In Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. DISH Network L.L.C., Dragon filed a response opposing the petition, which raised the following two questions:
- “Whether the panel legally erred in determining that, as a matter of law, district courts have no discretion to hold a party’s attorney jointly and severally liable for fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.”
- “Whether the panel legally erred in determining that, as a matter of law, fees incurred by an accused infringer who prevailed in an inter partes review (‘IPR’) when the underlying litigation was stayed are never recoverable.”
In its response, Dragon argues Dish Network’s petition should be denied because, “[i]n cases where a party voluntarily elects to pursue an invalidity challenge through IPR proceedings, [there is] no basis for awarding IPR fees under [35 U.S.C.] § 285.” Additionally, Dragon contends that “liability for attorneys’ fees awarded under § 285 does not extend to counsel.”
Denial
The Federal Circuit denied a petition for en banc rehearing in one case:
- Sonos, Inc. v. International Trade Commission (ITC authority related to patent infringement)