Legal Opinion
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Rambus, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Virginia
Decided July 18, 2006No. Civ.A. 3:05CV406PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PAYNE, District Judge.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) has moved for an award of attorney’s fees against Rambus Inc. (“Ram-bus”), under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and the Court’s inherent power. In deciding whether an award of attorney’s fees is appropriate under § 285, it is necessary to determine whether this is an exceptional case. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that this is an exceptional case, but that an award of attorney’s fees to Samsung is not appropriate under either § 285 or the Court’s inherent power.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Samsung filed…
2Cases cited63 opinions
- Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Cybor Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., Defendants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Precision Instrument Manufacturing Co. v. Automotive Maintenance MacHinery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Goodman v. Praxair Services, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 2009
- Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011
- In re Ethicon, Inc. Pelvic Repair Systems Product Liability LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. West Virginia · 2014
- E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Industries, Inc.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2011
- Huggins v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD.District Court, D. Maryland · 2010
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.