Legal Opinion

Universal Electronics, Inc. v. Universal Remote Control, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California

Decided September 4, 2015No. CASE NO. SACV 12-00329 AG (JPRx)PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER SETTING AWARD OF FEES AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING TAXABLE COSTS TO DEFENDANT

Andrew J. Guilford, United States District Judge

The Court has held that‘Defendant Universal Remote Control, Inc. (“Defendant” or “URC”) is entitled to attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. section 285, as recently interpreted by the Supreme Court in Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1749, 188 L.Ed.2d 816 (2014). In Octane, the Supreme Court eased the requirements to get such fees under section 285. Now the Court must calculate the amount of fees to be awarded. The Court’s Order also now…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  4. Fox v. ViceSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
  5. Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass'n v. County of Albany & Albany County Board of ElectionsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2008

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Blumenthal Distributing, Inc. v. Gamesis, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2022
  2. G.P.P., Inc. v. Guardian Protection Products, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2023
  3. H.I.S.C, Inc. v. Franmar International Importers, Ltd.District Court, S.D. California · 2020
  4. ITN Flix, LLC v. Gloria HinojosaDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2020
  5. Stiles v. Walmart, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2023

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API