NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee

HONEYWELL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES, 

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., NOKIA INC., AU 

OPTRONICS CORP., AU OPTRONICS 

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 Nos. 1:04-cv-01337-LPS, 1:04-cv-
2 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. v. FUJIFILM CORPORATION

01338-LPS, 1:04-cv-01536-LPS, 1:05-cv-00874-LPS, Chief 

Judge Leonard P. Stark.

______________________ 

Decided: January 11, 2018

______________________ 

 MARTIN RICHARD LUECK, Robins Kaplan LLP, Minneapolis, MN, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by MATTHEW L. WOODS, PETER N. SURDO. 

 MATTHEW SIEGAL, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, 

New York, NY, argued for defendants-appellants FujiFilm 

Corporation, Fujifilm USA. Also represented by 

LAWRENCE ROSENTHAL. 

 STEPHEN S. KORNICZKY, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & 

Hampton LLP, San Diego, CA, argued for defendantsappellants Samsung SDI America Inc., Samsung SDI Co 

Ltd. Also represented by MARTIN BADER, MICHAEL 

MURPHY. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and STOLL,

Circuit Judges.

STOLL, Circuit Judge. 

Appellants Fujifilm Corporation, Fujifilm USA, Samsung 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.” An 

“exceptional” case under § 285 is one that “stands out 

from others with respect to the substantive strength of a 
HONEYWELL 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 exceptional by a preponderance of the evidence, and the district 

court makes the exceptional case determination on a caseby-case basis considering the totality of the circumstances. See id. 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. The 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 Honeywell 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. The 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 Supreme 
4 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. v. FUJIFILM CORPORATION

Court changed the legal standard for attorneys’ fees 

under § 285. See Highmark, 134 S. Ct. at 1748–49; Octane, 134 S. Ct. 1756–58. Accordingly, this court vacated

and remanded 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 new 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 supporting an award of fees, we are cognizant of the Supreme 

Court’s exhortation that: 

“[A]s a matter of the sound administration of justice,” the district court “is better positioned” to decide whether a case is exceptional, because it lives 

with the case over a prolonged period of time . . . . 

[T]he question is “multifarious and novel,” not 

susceptible to “useful generalization” of the sort 

that de novo review provides, and “likely to profit 

from the experience that an abuse-of-discretion 

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 circumstances—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 the 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 agree 
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. v. FUJIFILM CORPORATION 5

with the district court that losing a summary judgment 

motion should not automatically result in a finding of 

exceptional conduct. The district court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying appellants’ motions for attorneys’ 

fees. We affirm.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Costs to Appellee.