Plaintiff’s Repeated Litigation Misconduct Warrants 35 U.S.C. § 285 Attorney Fee Award​

The court denied plaintiff's motion to reconsider an earlier order awarding attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 because the case was exceptional. "[Plaintiff] made arguments that were foreclosed by the Court, and [its] conduct before this and other courts strongly suggests [plaintiff's] goal in filing this action was settlement. Alone, these two observations support the Court’s finding that the case is exceptional. In addition, [plaintiff] failed to file final infringement contentions, failed to communicate with [defendant] even after multiple judges warned [plaintiff] about a possible dismissal for want of prosecution, was uncooperative throughout discovery, and failed to engage in meaningful settlement discussions. The Court, in its sound discretion, finds that the totality of the circumstances renders this case exceptional. The Court certainly has never seen another case like it."

Marshall Feature Recognition, LLC v. Wendy's International, Inc., 1-14-cv-00865 (ILND November 16, 2016, Order) (Coleman, USDJ)