April 15, 2020
Authored and Edited by Regan J. Rundio; Caitlin E. O'Connell; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc. v. Timney Triggers, LLC, No. 2019-1134 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 13, 2020), the Federal Circuit held, in an opinion authored by Judge Lourie, that a defendant cannot recover attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 where the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its case under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
Mossberg sued Timney for patent infringement. In lieu of answering, Timney requested and received a stay of the district court proceedings pending an inter partes reexamination. After the patent was invalidated during the reexamination, Mossberg agreed to dismiss its complaint without prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Following dismissal, Timney filed a motion for attorneys’ fees. The district court denied Timney’s motion because the nature of Mossberg’s dismissal precluded Timney from securing the “prevailing party” status required by 35 U.S.C. § 285.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed explaining that a party cannot “prevail” without a “material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties” marked by “judicial imprimatur.” The Court rejected Timney’s argument that the stay below altered the parties’ relationship explaining that it merely “remained in place while the parties determined the patent’s validity in a separate venue.” The Court further explained there was no judicial imprimatur because Mossberg’s dismissal was “effective immediately” and the district court’s subsequent dismissal order had no legal effect. Therefore, the Court found that Timney does not qualify as a “prevailing party.”
The Federal Circuit issued Mossberg a week after Keith Manufacturing Co. v. Butterfield, No. 2019-1136 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2020). As discussed previously, in Keith, another opinion authored by Judge Lourie, the Court held that dismissal with prejudice constitutes a final judgment for purposes of FRCP 54. There is tension between the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Keith and its opinion in Mossberg, as the dismissal with prejudice at-issue in Keith was also self-executing and required no action by the court. As Mossberg did not cite or distinguish Keith it is not clear how this tension will be resolved in future cases.
Copyright © 2020 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.