Source: https://www.fr.com/fish-litigation/edtx-ndtx-monthly-wrap-up-jan-2019/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 08:31:32+00:00

Document:
In this case, Judge Kinkeade found that because “InvestPic’s threats of suit against SAP combined with InvestPic’s failure to recognize the weaknesses in its § 101 position  led SAP to incur all of the reasonable and necessary fees incurred in this case” awarding all reasonable and necessary attorney fees was therefore appropriate. Judge Kinkeade also found InvestPic’s weak § 101 validity position to be “readily apparent”, particularly in light of the Federal Circuit’s affirmation of his earlier § 101 invalidity order, first by a three-judge panel decision and then second after a request for rehearing.
 SAP America Inc v. InvestPic LLC, 3-16-cv-02689, Dkt. 164 at 8 (N.D. Tex. December 4, 2018).
 See InvestPic LLC v. Algorithmics (US) Inc., et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-1028-RGA.
 In re Varma, 816 F.3d 1352, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
 Corrected Brief for Appellee-Director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office in Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2015-1502 (Reexamination No. 90/012,366) at p. 32, fn. 7 (Nov. 9, 2015).
 SAP America Inc v. InvestPic LLC, 3-16-cv-02689, Dkt. 86 at 6 (N.D. Tex. June 1, 2017).
 SAP America Inc v. InvestPic LLC, 3-16-cv-02689, Dkt. 78 at 18 (N.D. Tex. May 18, 2017).
 SAP America Inc v. InvestPic LLC, 3-16-cv-02689, Dkt. 128 at 4 (N.D. Tex. February 21, 2018).
 SAP America Inc v. InvestPic LLC, 3-16-cv-02689, Dkt. 164 (N.D. Tex. December 4, 2018).

References: § 101
 § 101
 § 101
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.