Opinion ID: 148411
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: As a threshold matter, AMC argues that the district court should not have addressed inequitable conduct because it lacked jurisdiction to determine inventorship after Romag withdrew its counterclaim that the ADVANCED MAGNETIC v. ROME FASTENER 12 ’773 patent was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f). We review whether a district court properly asserted jurisdiction without deference. Monsanto Co. v. Bayer Bioscience N.V., 514 F.3d 1229, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2008). AMC misunderstands a district court’s authority to retain jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 285. This court has held that a district court retains jurisdiction to consider a motion for attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and to make findings of inequitable conduct—even after a party has dismissed its counterclaims as to that patent. See id. at 1242–43. The district court, therefore, properly retained jurisdiction to consider Romag’s motion for attorney’s fees based on inequitable conduct.