Axinn’s Client Awarded Attorneys’ Fees in “Exceptional” PIV Case
March 28, 2019
In Axinn’s latest victory for its client Alvogen, a Delaware federal district court granted in part Alvogen’s motion for attorneys’ fees. Alvogen’s generic version of the medication Uceris® had been accused of infringing a patent owned by Cosmo Technologies Ltd. At trial, Alvogen prevailed on its motion for a judgment of noninfringement under Rule 52(c) made at the close of Plaintiffs’ case-in-chief, which was “a truly rare occurrence (and nearly-unprecedented for the undersigned Judge).” The Federal Circuit summarily affirmed the district court’s decision on January 14, 2019. On March 27, 2019, the district court found this case was “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarded Alvogen its attorneys’ fees incurred after the pretrial conference. The district court based its decision on “the substantive weakness of Plaintiffs’ claims of infringement” and Plaintiffs’ “unreasonable” and prejudicial litigation conduct, including their “last-minute without-warning decision” to drop two other patents just two business days before trial. The Axinn team included Matt Becker and Jason Murata.
To subscribe to our publications, click here.
Featured Insights
Featured Insights
American Bar Association 2025 Asia-Pacific Conference
Speaking Engagement
Antitrust
NBA Commercial Law Section 38th Annual Corporate Counsel Conference
Sponsorship
Antitrust
GCR Live: Law Leaders Global 2025
Speaking Engagement
Antitrust
The 32nd Annual Marketing Partner Forum
Event
SABA North America Corporate Counsel Retreat 2025
Sponsorship
Antitrust
Axinn Antitrust Insight: FTC Announces Revised HSR Thresholds for 2025
Client Alerts
Antitrust
Four Axinn Thought Leadership Pieces Nominated for the Antitrust Writing Awards
Awards & Recognitions
Antitrust
Merger Remedies Back in Vogue Under Trump
Media Mentions
Antitrust
Three Takeaways from the Initial Determination at the ITC Regarding Standard Essential Patents in the 1380 Investigation
Axinn Viewpoints
Intellectual Property
A POSA’s Motivation Is Not Required To Be the Same as the Inventor’s in Evaluating Obviousness
Axinn Viewpoints
Intellectual Property