Court Affirms Attorney Fee Denial & Cautions Future Litigants

Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Spineology, Inc. v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc., 2018-1276 (December 14, 2018). At the district court, Wright and Spineology advanced competing claim constructions for a key disputed claim term. During the initial claim construction phase of the case, the district court declined to adopt either party’s construction. During the summary judgment phase, however, the district court construed the disputed term consistent with Wright’s position and granted Wright’s motion for summary judgment of no infringement. Wright moved for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and the district court denied the motion, finding that nothing about Spineology’s claim construction position, damages theories, or litigation conduct stood out from other cases or was so meritless as to justify an exceptional case finding. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Court agreed with the district court that Spineology’s ultimate defeat on claim construction did not render the case exceptional. The Court noted, in particular, the fact that the district court initially rejected Wright’s proposed claim construction as well. The Court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that Spineology’s damages theories were not so meritless as to render the case exceptional. The Court rejected Wright’s argument that the district court should have done more to analyze the merits of Spineology’s damages theories, which were rendered moot by the grant of summary judgment. The Court explained, when it comes to deciding a § 285 exceptional case motion, district courts need not “litigate to resolution every issue mooted by summary judgment,” nor will the Federal Circuit conduct such a trial in the first instance. The Court further held the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Spineology’s litigation conduct was not exceptional. The Court also had some messages for practitioners, “caution[ing] future litigants to tread carefully in their complaints about district courts not doing enough” and reminding that “fee awards are not to be used ‘as a penalty for failure to win a patent infringement suit.’"