Union Oil Co. of California v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.

Good Law
34 F. Supp. 2d 1222·1998 WL 966747·1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21786
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaSeptember 11, 1998CV-95-2379-KMW (JRx)California1,434 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wardlaw, J.

ORDER RE: ATTORNEYS’ FEES

The Court has considered the motion by Plaintiff Union Oil Company of California (“Unocal”) for attorneys’ fees. Having con sidered all of the papers filed in support of and in opposition to this motion, all evidentia-ry materials submitted by the parties, and all files and records in this case, the Court is prepared to rule and hereby GRANTS plaintiffs motion for attorneys’ fees as set forth below.

The trial court presiding over a patent case may, in exceptional cases, award reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 . The award of attorneys’ fees under § 285 requires a threshold determination' that the action before the Court is an “exceptional” case — a case marked by bad faith during litigation or other unfairness. Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic, Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1574-75 (Fed.Cir.1996); Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. L.K.B. Produkter A.B., 892 F.2d 1547 , 1551-52 (Fed.Cir.1989). Such conduct must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. Beckman, 892 F.2d at 1551.

Defendants commenced this lawsuit against Unocal on April 13, 1995, seeking a declaratory judgment that the ’393 patent is invalid and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.