IP News

On June 7, 2013, the Federal Circuit panel of Judges Dyk, Bryson, and Reyna issued its opinion in Precision Links, Inc. v. USA Products Group, Inc., No. 2012-1461, vacating an award of $250,395 that had been awarded to the defendants due to plaintiff's alleged litigation misconduct.' The district court had held that Precision's ultimately unsuccessful construction of claim 1 of the asserted patent was objectively baseless and had been brought tin bad faith.' Slip Op. at 3.' The district court also took issue with several of Precision's other actions, including a theory that defendants' products were manufactured of a cheap and inferior material that could cause harm to consumers, which was used to support a theory of irreparable harm.' Id.'

The Federal Circuit determined that Precision's claim construction position was not frivolous, and that 'Precision's infringement theory was not objectively baseless and that it was improper for the district court to conclude that the infringement allegations as to claim 1 were brought in bad faith.” Id. at 6.' The Federal Circuit did agree with the defendants and the district court, however, that indirect infringement claims related to other asserted claims were baseless and that a mere allegation that the defendants offered to sell multiple accused products together 'falls far short of the kind of showing required for indirect infringement.” Id. at 9.' The fee award was vacated, and the proceedings were remanded for further consideration as to whether the case was exceptional.

Jeffrey S. Ginsberg is a partner and'Joseph Mercadante is an associate'in the New York office of Kenyon &'Kenyon LLP.

On June 7, 2013, the Federal Circuit panel of Judges Dyk, Bryson, and Reyna issued its opinion in Precision Links, Inc. v. USA Products Group, Inc., No. 2012-1461, vacating an award of $250,395 that had been awarded to the defendants due to plaintiff's alleged litigation misconduct.' The district court had held that Precision's ultimately unsuccessful construction of claim 1 of the asserted patent was objectively baseless and had been brought tin bad faith.' Slip Op. at 3.' The district court also took issue with several of Precision's other actions, including a theory that defendants' products were manufactured of a cheap and inferior material that could cause harm to consumers, which was used to support a theory of irreparable harm.' Id.'

The Federal Circuit determined that Precision's claim construction position was not frivolous, and that 'Precision's infringement theory was not objectively baseless and that it was improper for the district court to conclude that the infringement allegations as to claim 1 were brought in bad faith.” Id. at 6.' The Federal Circuit did agree with the defendants and the district court, however, that indirect infringement claims related to other asserted claims were baseless and that a mere allegation that the defendants offered to sell multiple accused products together 'falls far short of the kind of showing required for indirect infringement.” Id. at 9.' The fee award was vacated, and the proceedings were remanded for further consideration as to whether the case was exceptional.

Jeffrey S. Ginsberg is a partner and'Joseph Mercadante is an associate'in the New York office of Kenyon &'Kenyon LLP.