Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/293611319/eDekka-ED-Tex-Dec-17-2015-pdf
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:18:30+00:00

Document:
Blue Spike v. L-1 Identity Solutions et. al.
Lake Cherokee Hard Drive Technologies v. MediaTek et. al.
Peregrine Semiconductor v. RF Micro Devices et. al.
Defendants Motion and holds that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285.
sued a large number of defendants in this Court alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No.
moved and some who joined earlier have later withdrawn their joinder.
All citations to the record refer to consolidated case number 2:15-cv-541 unless otherwise indicated.
motion asking this Court to find the above-captioned cases exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285.
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).
exercise of their discretion, considering the totality of the circumstances. Octane Fitness, 134 S.
mindful that the district court has lived with the case and the lawyers for an extended period.).
entitlement to attorney fees only by a preponderance of the evidence. Octane Fitness, 134 S. Ct.
Significantly, sanctionable conduct is not the standard for awarding fees under 285. Id.
to justify an award of fees. Id. at 1757.
unreasonable manner. (Mot. at 7, 13.) The Court agrees.
to address this argument or make this finding.
The apparatus claims provide no additional features or meaningful limitations.
improves the functioning of the computer.
THE COURT: So is the purpose of this patent a teaching tool for computer users?
[COUNSEL FOR EDEKKA]: Yes, we would agree that it is.
educational process for people that would use it?
alluding to something that you believe is inventive and unconventional?
[COUNSEL FOR EDEKKA]: Yes, Your Honor, we do.
meant to serve as a teaching tool for computer users.
computer and provided two wholly conclusory declarations to support the assertion. (Dkt. No.
software or a special purpose computer, then the 674 Patent claims would likely exclude the preferred embodiment.
positions support an exceptional case finding.
an unreasonable manner as part of its exceptional case determination . . . . SFA Sys., LLC v.
exceptional case determination under 285. Id. at 1350.
their cases for three-thousand dollars each. These offers represent extraordinarily low amounts.
Such offers remained open until they were withdrawn during the evening of September 9, 2015.
unnecessarily extended [the] litigation and caused . . . needless litigation expenses).
case was litigated in an unreasonable manner. SFA Sys., 793 F.3d at 1349.
find that this is an exceptional case.
incurred. Such submission shall be made within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 17th day of December, 2015.
Dynamic 3D Geosolutions v. IHS et. al.
Blue Spike v. Fujitsu America et. al.
Blue Spike v. NEC Corporation of America et. al.
Blue Spike v. Biometrika et. al.
Blue Spike v. Smart Media Innovations et. al.
Blue Spike v. Technicolor et. al.
Blue Spike v. Irdeto et. al.
Blue Spike v. AxxonSoft et. al.
Amethyst IP v. Y-Cam Solutions et. al.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.