Case ID: f-appx_615/html/0688-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PROST, Chief Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., Honeywell Intellectual Properties Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. NOKIA CORPORATION, Nokia, Inc., Seiko Epson Corporation, Argus, Toshiba America, Inc., All Around Co. Ltd., Boehydis Technology Co. Ltd., Picvue Electronics Limited, Defendants v. Fujifilm Corporation, Fujifilm North America Corporation (Formerly known as Fujifilm U.S.A., Inc.), Defendants-Appellants. Samsung SDI Co. Ltd., Samsung SDI America Inc., Defendants-Appellants.
    Nos. 2012-1373, 2012-1374.
    United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
    Sept. 11, 2015.
    Martin Richard Lueck, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, LLP, Minneapolis, MN, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. Also represented by Matthew L. Woods, Stacie Elizabeth Oberts, Peter N. Surdo.
    
      Matthew Siegal, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, New York, NY, argued for defendants-appellants Fujifilm Corporation, Fujifilm North America Corporation. Also represented by Ian Dibernardo, Lawrence Rosenthal.
    Stephen S. Korniczky, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, San Diego, CA, argued for defendants-appellants Samsung SDI Co. Ltd., Samsung SDI America Inc. Also represented by Michael Murphy, Martin Bader; Edward V. Anderson, Palo Alto, CA.
    Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.
   PROST, Chief Judge.

Honeywell International Inc. and Honeywell Intellectual Properties Inc. (“Honeywell”) filed suit against numerous defendants in October 2004 for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,280,871 (“'371 patent”). On summary judgment, Judge Farnan, of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware ruled from the bench that the '371 patent was invalid for violation of the on-sale bar. Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Nikon Corp., 672 F.Supp.2d 638, 640 (D.Del.2009). This court affirmed Judge Farnan’s decision per curiam in February 2011. Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Nokia Corp., 400 Fed.Appx. 557 (Fed.Cir.2010). After this court affirmed Judge Faman’s decision, the defendants filed Fees Motions under 35 U.S.C. § 285. On March 30, 2012, Judge Stark denied defendants’ Fees Motions. Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Nokia Corp., 2014 WL 2568041 (D.Del. May 30, 2014) (public version). The defendants each timely filed a Notice of Appeal.

During the pendency of this appeal, in a pair of decisions, the Supreme Court set aside our prior precedent under § 285. See Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1744, 188 L.Ed.2d 829 (2014); Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1749, 188 L.Ed.2d 816 (2014). “In those cases, the Court (i) rejected our precedent under § 285 that required both a showing of subjective bad faith and objective baselessness to find a case exceptional, (ii) lowered the burden of proof for proving a case exceptional, and (iii) changed the standard of review on appeal.” Checkpoint Sys. v. All-Tag Sec. S.A, 572 Fed.Appx. 988, 989 (Fed.Cir.2014).

As the district court applied our prior precedent under § 285, we vacate the district court’s decision on this issue and remand for further consideration of whether the ease should be deemed exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, in light of the Supreme Court’s guidance from Highmark and Octane Fitness.

VACATED AND REMANDED

Costs

Each party shall bear its own costs.