#Jmol vs summary judgment full
#Jmol vs summary judgment trial

In one instance, the court of appeals deferred to the district court’s conclusion that a statement contained an improper suggestion about whether Medtronic could make certain product-to-product comparisons to prove infringement, notwithstanding that there was an alternative plausible and proper interpretation of the same statement.

Notwithstanding the deferential factual and legal standards of review on appeal, the Federal Circuit, by contrast, variously found the statements to be “ unfair or confusing,” “not misleading,” “clearly correct,” “innocuous” in context, “unobjectionable,” and “permissible argument,” that “served legitimate purpose.” Regarding the issue of litigation misconduct, the district court had found a number of statements made by Medtronic’s counsel and expert witnesses to be misleading and improper. The Federal Circuit held, “bsent misrepresentation to the court, a party is entitled to rely on a court’s denial of summary judgment and JMOL, as well as the jury’s favorable verdict, as an indication that the party’s claims were objectively reasonable and suitable for resolution at trial.” The court further noted that Medtronic’s persistence was not improper because after the Markman hearing Medtronic dropped its claims of literal infringement for two of the patents because they had been undermined by the district court’s claim construction, and instead relied on the doctrine of equivalents. The Federal Circuit flatly rejected the district court’s suggestion that Medtronic had a duty to abandon its claims at the summary judgment stage, when the district court denied BrainLAB’s motions for summary judgment and its first JMOL. The district court had concluded that because it had construed Medtronic’s patent claims so narrowly during the pretrial Markman hearing, Medtronic should have either abandoned its case at the summary judgment stage or sought to immediately appeal the district court’s claim construction. In so holding, the appellate court noted the important economic and reputational interests at stake.

#Jmol vs summary judgment trial

The court squarely rejected and repudiated the district court’s underlying findings and its conclusions as constituting clear error and well outside the scope of the trial court’s inherent authority. Notwithstanding the extremely deferential standards of review on appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the award of attorney fees and expenses.

#Jmol vs summary judgment full

§ 1927 to hold Medtronic’s law firm (McDermott, Will & Emery LLP) jointly responsible for the fees because the firm assertedly had proceeded “cavalierly” and “with full awareness that their case was without merit.” In the alternative, the district court justified the award of fees as within the court’s inherent authority to sanction litigation misconduct. § 285, which states: “The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” The district court also relied on 28 U.S.C. The trial court awarded fees under 35 U.S.C.

BrainLAB ultimately prevailed on its second JMOL, and the Federal Circuit affirmed.īrainLAB then petitioned the district court for attorney fees and expenses. The jury then returned a verdict for Medtronic on all four patents. Medtronic prevailed against BrainLAB’s motions for summary judgement and BrainLAB’s first motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL).

Medtronic alleged that BrainLAB’s VectorVision products infringed four of Medtronic’s patents. Plaintiffs (collectively, “Medtronic”) brought a patent infringement action against defendants (collectively, “BrainLAB”). The appellate court further held that the trial court had mischaracterized as litigation misconduct statements and positions of the lawyers and expert witnesses that were in fact permissible and correct. The Federal Circuit reversed an award of attorney fees against patent infringement plaintiffs and their law firm, concluding that the trial court had committed clear error in determining that plaintiffs were obliged to have abandoned certain claims notwithstanding that they had prevailed on more than one dispositive motion on the claims. BrainLAB Medizinische Computersysteme GMBH,_ F.3d_, 2010 WL 1644062 (Fed.