N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., Plaintiff

- Appellee
HONEYWELL INTELLECTUAL PROPERT IES, INC., Plaintiff

v. FUJIFILM CORPORATION, FUJIFILM USA, SAMSUNG SDI AMERICA INC., SAMSUNG SDI CO LTD., Defendants

- Appellants
BOE

- HYDIS TECHNOLOGY CO LTD., PICVUE ELECTRONICS LIMITED, TOSHIBA AMERICA INC., ALL AROUND CO LTD., NOKI A INC., AU OPTRONICS CORP., AU O PTRONICS

CORPORATION AMERICA, NOKIA CORPORATION, SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION, ARGUS, Defendants

______________________

2017

- 1070, 2017

- 1073

______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in No s . 1:04

- cv - 01337

- LPS, 1:04

- cv -HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC

. v. FUJIFILM CORPORATION 2

01338

- LPS, 1:04

- cv - 01536

- LPS, 1:05

- cv - 00874

- LPS, Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark.

______________________ Decided: January 11, 2018

______________________ M ARTIN R ICHARD L UECK , Robins Kaplan LLP, Minn eapolis, MN, argued for plaintiff

- appellee. Also represen ted by M ATTHEW L. W OODS , P ETER N. S URDO

. M ATTHEW S IEGAL , Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, New York, NY, argued for defendants

- appellants FujiFilm Corporation, Fujifilm USA. Also represented by L AWRENCE R OSENTHAL

. S TEPHEN S. K ORNICZKY , Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, San Diego, CA, argued for defendants

appellants Samsung SDI America Inc., Samsung SDI Co Ltd. Also represented by M ARTIN B ADER , M ICHAEL M URPHY

.

______________________ Before P ROST , Chief Judge , N EWMAN and S TOLL , Circuit Judges

. S TOLL , Circuit Judge

. Appellants Fujifilm Corporation, Fujifilm U SA, Sa msung SDI America Inc., and Samsung SDI Co . Ltd. appeal the district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. Under § 285, a “court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” A n “exceptional” case under § 285 is one that “ stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of aHONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC

. v. FUJIFILM CORPORATION 3

party’s litigating position (considering both the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated. ” Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. , 134 S. Ct. 1749, 1756 (2014). The party seeking fees must prove that the case is exce ptional by a preponderance of the evidence, and the district court makes the exceptional case determination on a case

by

- case basis c onsidering the totality of the circumstan ces
. See i d. at 1756, 1758. We review a district court’s decision on attorneys’ fees for an abuse of discretion, which is a highly deferential standard of review

. Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc. , 134 S. Ct. 1744, 1749 (2014); Bayer CropScience AG v. Dow AgroSciences LLC , 851 F.3d 1302, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2017). To meet the abuse -of- discretion standard, the appellant must show that the district court made “a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors or in basing its decision on an error of law or on clearly erroneous factual findings.” Bayer , 851 F.3d at 1306 (citations omitted ); see also Highmark , 134 S. Ct. at 1748 n.2. Honeywell asserted U.S. Patent No. 5,280,371 against appellants

. T he district court held Honeywell’s patent invalid for violation of the on

- sale bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102 on summary judgment , and we affirmed

. See Ho neywell Int ’ l Inc. v. Nikon Corp. ( Honeywell I ) , 672 F. Supp. 2d 638 (D. Del. 2009), aff ’ d sub nom. Honeywell Int’ l Inc. v. Nokia Corp. ( Honeywell II ) , 400 F. App’x 557 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

. After prevailing at summary judgment , appellants filed motions seeking attorneys’ fees under § 285 on facts relating to the on

- sale bar violation. T he district court denied the motions

. See Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Nokia Corp. ( Honeywell III ) , No. CV 04

- 1337

- LPS, 2014 WL 2568041 (D. Del. May 30, 2014). Appellants appealed to this court. While the appeal was pending, the SupremeHONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC

. v. FUJIFILM CORPORATION 4

Court changed the legal standard for attorneys’ fees under § 285. See Highmark , 134 S. Ct. at 1748

– 49 ; O ctane , 134 S. Ct. 17 56

– 58 . Accordingly, this court vacated and remande d Honeywell III for reconsideration in light of Highmark and Octane

. See Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Nokia Corp. ( Honeywell IV ) , 615 F. App’x 688 (Fed. Cir. 2015)

. On remand, the district court considered renewed briefing and oral argument in light of the n ew standard

. Applying the new standard in a detailed and structured analysis , the district court again denied attorneys’ fees. Fuji and Samsung appeal. Though the appellants raise plausible arguments su pporting an award of fees , we are cognizant of the Supreme Court’s exhortation that :

“ [A]s a matter of the sound administration of ju stice,” the district court “is better positioned” to d ecide whether a case is exceptional, because it lives with the case over a prolonged period o f time



### . . . . [T]he question is “multifarious and novel,” not
su s ceptible to “useful generalization” of the sort that de novo review provides, and “likely to profit from the experience that an abuse -of- discreti on rule will permit to develop.” Highmark , 134 S. Ct. at 1748

– 49 (citations omitted)

. Here, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in denying fees . The district court applied the correct legal test under § 285 and Octane . Indeed, it examined the totality of the circumstanc es— including all of the circumstances raised by appellants on appeal

— to determine whether this case stood out from others. See Octane , 134 S. Ct. at 1756. The district court’s analysis demonstrated the totality -of- the

- circumstances approach, detailing th e reasons why Honeywell’s positions on the merits and litigation tactics did not make this case, in its judgment, exceptional. The district court’s fact findings on the issue are not clearly erroneous

. Further, we agreeHONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC

. v. FUJIFILM CORPORATION 5

with the district court that losin g a summary judgment motion should not automatically result in a finding of exceptional conduct. T he district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants ’ motions for attorneys’ fees. We affirm. AFFIRMED C OSTS Costs to Appellee.