§ 285 Archives | IP UPDATE

Epic omission: District court must address pre-suit notice of potential patent ineligibility when denying sanctions, fees

Addressing a district court’s denial of motions for Rule 11 sanctions and attorneys’ fees and costs, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, finding that the district court had not adequately explained why a patentee’s pre-suit notice of potential invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 did not render its infringement suit unreasonable. Epic Tech, LLC v. Pen-Tech Associates, Inc., Case No. 25-1624 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 2026) (Moore, C.J.; Cunningham, J.; Subramanian, Distr. J., sitting by designation).

Epic Tech owns a patent directed to an electronic gaming system that connects gaming terminals to a server network so that an initial game can run while a secondary game operates in the background. After the patent issued in 2013, several related applications encountered validity problems during prosecution. One related application was rejected on nonstatutory double patenting grounds over claims of the issued patent. After the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected claims in that application and two other related applications under § 101. Epic Tech ultimately abandoned all three applications.

Epic Tech later asserted another related patent in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas. That district court found the asserted claims patent ineligible under § 101, although the decision was later vacated.

In 2020, Epic Tech sued Pen-Tech in the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for infringement of the gaming system patent. On summary judgment, the district court found the asserted claims ineligible under § 101 under the two-step Alice framework. Pen-Tech then sought Rule 11 sanctions against Epic Tech and its counsel, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the court’s inherent authority.

Pen-Tech argued that several developments should have put Epic Tech and its counsel on notice that the asserted patent faced a serious § 101 problem before suit was filed, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice, the USPTO’s § 101 rejections in related applications, and the district court’s ineligibility decision involving another related patent. According to Pen-Tech, those circumstances required Epic Tech to conduct a meaningful pre-suit validity investigation.

The district court denied the motions, concluding that Epic Tech’s and its counsel’s positions were not frivolous, that the case was not exceptional, and that the litigation had not been pursued unreasonably or vexatiously. Pen-Tech appealed.

The Federal Circuit vacated, finding that the district court’s explanation was insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review. The Court emphasized that the combination of Alice, the USPTO’s post-Alice rejections of related claims, and the prior district court ineligibility ruling created a “compelling concern over the validity” of the asserted claims. Two of the related applications were particularly significant because the USPTO had previously found their claims patentably indistinct from the asserted patent.

The Federal Circuit found that the district court had not meaningfully addressed Pen-Tech’s notice theory. The district court relied in part on Epic Tech’s pre-suit [...]

Continue Reading

Fee Shifting Under § 285 Does Not Apply to Conduct Solely Arising in IPR

Considering for the first time whether fee shifting of § 285 applies to exceptional conduct arising solely from an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that § 285 does not authorize an award of fees based on conduct at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) during the course of an IPR proceeding. Amneal Pharma. LLC v. Almirall, LLC, Case No. 2020-1106 (Fed. Cir. June 4, 2020) (Dyk, J.).

Almirall owns certain Orange Book-listed patent rights to medication used to treat acne. Its competitor, Amneal, planned to market a generic version of the acne medication. Before seeking approval to do so, Amneal filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of certain claims of Almirall’s patents. Amneal then filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA), identifying Almirall’s patents in the Paragraph IV certification. Almirall subsequently filed a district court action against Amneal for infringement. Shortly after the district court action was filed, the parties entered into settlement negotiations, during which Almirall offered Amneal a covenant-not-to-sue, provided that Almirall drop its pending IPR. The parties were unable to reach agreement at that time, and the IPR culminated in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)’s final written decision, finding the challenged claims not unpatentable. Amneal appealed the PTAB’s final determination. Shortly after the appeal was filed, the parties reached an agreement and jointly moved to dismiss the appeal. Almirall also moved for fees under § 285 for Amneal’s allegedly unreasonable conduct in maintaining its IPR, even after Amneal offered it a covenant-not-to-sue.

Comparing IPRs to interference proceedings, the Federal Circuit looked to a decision of its predecessor, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, which determined that § 285 did not extend to appeals of administrative proceedings at the USPTO, and IPRs were no different. Stopping short of proclaiming a categorical rule that § 285 applies only to conduct in district court proceedings, the Court explained that at most, § 285 speaks to awarding fees that were incurred during, in close relation to, or as a direct result of district court proceedings. In the circumstance here, where the alleged exceptional conduct was solely before the USPTO and an appeal of the USPTO decision—not a district court’s decision—an award under § 285 was not appropriate. In addition, the Court noted that the USPTO has its own procedures for sanctioning exceptional conduct under 37 C.F.R. § 42.12, where the PTAB may award “compensatory expenses, including attorney’s fees,” among other sanctions.