Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

INTRODUCTION

22 In these related actions for patent infringement, defendants move for attorney’s fees and 23 24 costs. For the reasons stated below, the motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

STATEMENT

25 This order finds that the shifting sands of the patent owner’s delineations of the claimed 26 invention’s scope — instigated by its narrowing of scope to avoid invalidity before the Federal 27 Circuit, followed by its broadening of scope to accuse others of infringement in the district 28 1 court — render the above-captioned actions “exceptional” within the meaning of Section 285 of 2 Title 35 of the United States Code. 3 The procedural background of these related actions has been described in prior orders 4 but will be summarized herein (see Case No. 16-3582, Dkt. Nos. 61, 78). Plaintiff Straight Path 5 IP Group, Inc. sued defendant Cisco Systems, Inc., alleging infringement of United States 6 Patent Nos. 6,009,469 (“the ’469 patent”), 6,108,704 (“the ’704 patent”), 6,131,121 (“the ’121 7 patent”), and 6,701,365 (“the ’365 patent”). In a related action, Straight Path also sued 8 defendant Apple Inc. for allegedly infringing these four patents plus…