Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Intellectual Property StrategistColumns & DepartmentsIntellectual PropertyLitigationPatent Litigation

IP News

By Howard Shire and Stephanie Remy
December 01, 2021

In Energy Heating, LLC v. Heat On-The-Fly, LLC, 15 F.4th 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2021), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court of North Dakota's finding that the case was exceptional and that the court may award reasonable attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. §285. The court found that the patent owner was granted its patent due to inequitable conduct for intentionally failing to disclose prior sales and unreasonably pursuing litigation with a fraudulently obtained patent.

|

Background

In the case, Heat On-The-Fly, LLC (HOTF) owned U.S. Patent No. 8,171,993 (the '993 Patent) for a method of fracking. Energy Heating LLC (Energy) sought a declaratory judgment of noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability due to inequitable conduct. The district court agreed with Energy's inequitable conduct argument and found the patent unenforceable. Specifically, the district court found inequitable conduct because Energy established through clear and convincing evidence that HOTF deliberately withheld "substantial on-sale and public uses of the claimed invention" more than a year before the patent's priority date to the USPTO. Additionally, the district court found an intent to deceive USPTO. Accordingly, the court reasoned that a reasonable person who withholds information regarding on-sale and public uses to obtain a patent is also aware that the patent, if granted, is invalid.

HOTF appealed the district court's judgment of inequitable conduct. The appellate court affirmed the inequitable conduct and remanded a denial of attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. §285 to the district court for reconsideration, in light of the inequitable conduct holding. The district court referred the motions for attorneys' fees to a magistrate judge who conducted a hearing and found the case "exceptional."

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers Image

In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

CoStar Wins Injunction for Breach-of-Contract Damages In CRE Database Access Lawsuit Image

Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.

The Power of Your Inner Circle: Turning Friends and Social Contacts Into Business Allies Image

Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.