How many roads must a patentee go down, before he can see the sky? The patentee wishes to invest in plowshares, but those infringers divert some of the budget to swords. Then, at the reckoning, what is gained.
Passages from two recent decisions that deny post-judgment recoupment remind us that when the fire burns out, there may be nothing to carry away.
In Star Navigation Systems Group, Ltd. v. Aeromechanical Services Ltd., 2009 WL 1313208 (N.D.Cal. 2009), the accused infringers motion was denied after the plaintiff-patentee voluntarily dismissed the case. A “press release issued after Star voluntarily dismissed [explaining] that Star dismissed the action after concluding any award of damages it might obtain would be outweighed by the costs it would incur in prosecuting the matter” did not prove that Star had prosecuted the suit in bad faith.
Also denied was a post-judgment motion for attorneys fees, after a jury ruling, a JMOL, and a CAFC reversal, in Sundance, Inc. v. De Monte Fabricating, Ltd., 2009 WL 1324901 (E.D.Mich. 2009). The Hon. Avern Cohn, who has seen a lot in 30 years on the federal bench, noted all of the hoops that the patentee had hurdled, before the CAFC ruled de novo and declared invalidity ab initio. The ′109 patent was not only duly granted; it was thrice examined. That the Court and three (3) patent examiners got it wrong in the view of the Federal Circuit does not make this an exceptional case.
A variety of reasons suggest why the Patent Act needs to be reformed, but the gauntlet that the CAFC requires be run before a final decision can be reached, is a good one.