GIESECKE & DEVRIENT GMBH v. USA, No. 1:2017cv01812 - Document 169 (Fed. Cl. 2020)

Court Description: REPORTED OPINION AND ORDER. Unsealed version of 168: staying 140 Motion for Attorney Fees and vacating this court's Order of 1/24/20. Joint Status Report due by 11/13/2020. Signed by Judge Ryan T. Holte. (tjw) Service on parties made.

Download PDF

Dockets.Justia.com In the United States Court of Federal Claims OPINION AND ORDER HOLTE Judge. I. Factual and Procedural History GIESECKE & DEVRIENT GMBH v. USA A. Plaintiff’s Patent Infringement Claim See Doc. 169 Id B. Plaintiff’s Action Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498 See See See id . See See any facts Id. Id See See See See ee also Power Mosfet Techs., LLC v. Siemens AG C. HID’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees See Id. See See See See Id. See Id. See See Id See See See id.; see also see also See See See See II. Parties’ Arguments See See See Id Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. Id. Id. Id Id. S. Cal. Edison Corp. v. United States See Id. to the patent holder Id. Id Lemelson v. United States Id. Id. Id. Id. III. This Court’s Jurisdiction Regarding § 285 at this Stage of the Proceedings A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp United States v. Cotton Id. see also Central Pines Land Co., L.L.C. v. United States View Eng’g, Inc. v. Robotic Vision Sys., Inc. B. Jurisdictional Requirements for a 28 U.S.C. § 1498 Claim Zoltek Corp. v. United States Id. Lane v. Pena sole De Graffenried I” cert denied Id. Thornton-Trump II De Graffenried v. United States Decca Ltd. v. United States see also Thornton-Trump v. United States See e.g. Earth Res. Corp. v. United States Id.; see also Lamson v. United States id. Motorola, Inc. v. United States Pratt & Whitney Canada Inc. v. United States C. Attorneys’ Fees Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 see also De Graffenried v. United States De Graffenried II” private parties district court Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness Octane Fitness Id. Raniere v. Microsoft Corp CRST See Zoltek Corp. v. United States & Engine Bldg. Co. v. Int’l Curtis Marine Turbine Co. See William Cramp & Sons Ship see also Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC See id See See patent owner’s See id. see also Hitkansut LLC v. United States Broad Ave. Laundry & Tailoring v. United States See See Judin v. United States View Eng’g, Inc. v. Robotic Vision Sys., Inc. IV. Summary of Law Related to this Court’s Jurisdiction over Attorneys’ Fees Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. see also Gunn v. Minton Whitmore v. Arkansas Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t Arbaugh Kokkonen Arbaugh Warth v. Seldin The Importance of an Independent Judiciary Federalist The Federalist United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises Inc. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno United States v. King See see also RHI Holdings, Inc. v. United States Sherwood United States v. Testan United States v. Sherwood See Sherwood RHI Holdings, A. Established Authority to Award Attorneys’ Fees pursuant to RCFC 11 See Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. Id. See, e.g., Willy v. Coastal Corp. Phonometrics, Inc. v. Economy Inns of Am. See e.g. Coastal Envtl. Grp. v. United States Thornton-Trump v. United States Thornton-Trump I” B. Established Authority to Award Attorneys’ Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act See, e.g. Heger v. United States Bregstone v. United States St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. United States C. Established Authority to Award Attorneys’ Fees Pursuant to the Court’s Inherent Authority Chambers v. NASCO, Inc. United States v. Hudson Id. Link v. Wabash R. Co. Id. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc. See, e.g. Brooker v. United States Tecom, Inc. v. United States Precision Pine & Timber, Inc. v. United States Thornton-Trump II Thornton-Trump v. United States Thornton- Trump II D. Established Authority to Award Attorneys’ Fees Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498 Leesona Leesona Corp. v. U.S. Motorola, Inc. v. United States Fried Krupp Aktiengesellschaft United States Crozier v. Hughes Aircraft Co. v. vacated and remanded on other grounds Leesona Motorola Id. Calhoun v. United States, Id. Regent Jack Mfg. Co. v. United States Calhoun v. United States Regent Jack Mfg. Co. v. United States See Leesona Jamesbury Corp. v. United States De Graffenried II Motorola, Lemelson See FastShip LLC v. United States See, e.g. Waite v. United States Id. See, e.g. Rogers United States v. Bodcaw Co. Dohany v. see also Wright v. United States Wright to the prevailing party see also Hitkansut Hitkansut plaintiff Hitkansut Hitkansut See Hitkansut Id. Id. Id. Compare the owner’s with the prevailing party V. Whether the Court of Federal Claims Can Award Attorneys’ Fees Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co. Perrin v. United States Burns v. Alcala Escondido Mut. Water Co. v. La Jolla North Dakota v. United States Band of Mission Indians Utility Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA Octane Fitness in the United States Court of Federal Claims Compare with See King See see also Regent Jack Mfg. Co. v. United States Carrier Corp. v. United States Id. De Graffenried I Id. see Decca Ltd. v. United States Id. Leesona Corp. v. United States Judin v. United States Judin I Judin I Judin I Judin I Judin I not Judin I See id. Judin v. United States Judin II See generally id. Judin I Standard Mfg. Co. v. United States Motorola v. United States abrogated in other respects by Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. see A. A Review of the Statutory Structure of § 285 as a Remedy for Patent Infringement, Not a Defense to Liability and remedies See, e.g. S. Cal. Edison Co. v. United States defenses Avocent II Avocent Redmond Corp. v. United States defense Defense Remedy see also id. defenses See supra See South Corp. v. United States Sun Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. Bowser, Inc. v. United States and General Steel Tank Co. defense Id. Leesona Corporation v. United States See Leesona Corp. v. United States Id. Standard Mfg. Lamson v. United States Id. Lamson Id. Remedy remedies King see also RHI Holdings, See Leesona supra B. Section 285 as a Collateral Issue to the Court’s Jurisdiction Under § 1498 See Id. Id. See Id. In re Uusi Id. In re Uusi Uusi In re Uusi Uusi Id. see, e.g. White v. N.H. Dep’t of Employment Sec. Sprague v. Ticonic Nat’l Bank Motorola, See Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmar Corp. In re Uusi, LLC Sexton Holdings LLC v. Twin Tiger USA, LLC Elan Pharm., LLC v. Lokai Gen. Protect Grp., Inc. v. Leviton Mfg. Co. Corporation Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Cooter & Gell Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. Cooter & Gell Id. See, e.g. Coastal Envtl. Grp. Brooker Tecom Precision Pine & Timber Thornton-Trump I Budinich Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co. Budinich Id. Budinich Sprague timing See Budinich Cooter & Gell Budinich when Avocent I Avocent Redmond Corp. v. United States Avocent I Id. Id. Avocent I Lemelson See Lemelson v. United States Lemelson Id. Lemelson Id. see also King Lemelson Thornton Trump II See Avocent I Avocent I Avocent I Lemelson Lemelson Thornton-Trump II See Thornton-Trump II King Lemelson VI. Conclusion VACATED 13 November 2020 STAYED IT IS SO ORDERED.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.