Legal Opinion
Gaymar Industries, Inc. v. Cincinnati Sub-Zero Products, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided June 25, 2015No. 2014-1174PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DYK, Circuit Judge.
Cincinnati Sub-Zero Products, Inc. (“CSZ”), the prevailing party in this patent infringement case, appeals the district court’s denial of attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. In holding that this was not an “exceptional case,” the district court found that plaintiff Gaymar Industries, Inc.’s (“Gaymar”) litigation position was not objectively baseless. In assessing the totality of the circumstances, the district court relied on several instances of defendant CSZ’s purported litigation misconduct as a basis for finding that the case was not exceptional. We affirm the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2014
- Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2014
- Titan Tire Corp. v. Case New Holland, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009
- Nutrition 21 v. The United States of America v. Thorne Research, Inc., Albert F. CzapCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- Brooks Furniture Manufacturing, Inc. v. Dutailier International, Inc. And Dutailier, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Stone Basket Innovations, LLC v. Cook Medical LLCCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2018
- Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2017
- Barry v. Medtronic, Inc.District Court, E.D. Texas · 2017
- Polara Engineering, Inc. v. Campbell Co.District Court, S.D. California · 2017
- VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc.District Court, E.D. Texas · 2017
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.