Federal Circuit: Section 285 Does Not Permit Recovery of Fees Incurred in IPRs Nor Does it Extend to Counsel

June 25, 2024

Reading Time : 2 min

The Federal Circuit recently ruled that a petitioner in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding with related district court litigation cannot recover attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The Federal Circuit further held that Section 285 does not extend liability for a fee award to counsel.

After being sued for patent infringement along with eight other defendants, Appellants filed an IPR petition challenging the lone patent-in-suit. The IPR was instituted, and as a result, the district court stayed the case as to Appellants, but continued with the case against the remaining eight defendants. Shortly thereafter the court issued its claim construction order, all parties stipulated to non-infringement and judgement was entered for each defendant. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) final written decision that all asserted claims were unpatentable followed.

After a series of appeals left the outcome of the district court case and IPR unchanged, Appellants filed a motion for attorneys’ fees in the district court. Specifically, Appellants moved to recover the attorneys’ fees they incurred in the district court litigation and IPR, and sought to recover those fees from plaintiff and its counsel on theory of joint and several liability. The district court awarded the Appellants’ fees for litigating in the district court, but refused to award fees for the IPR or against plaintiff’s counsel.

On appeal, Appellants argued that because the IPR was “‘part and parcel’ of the case,” the optional nature of an IPR filing should not preclude recovery of fees under Section 285. The Federal Circuit disagreed. Because Appellants made a voluntary and strategic choice to pursue an IPR rather than litigate validity in the district court, they were not entitled to fees for the IPR. As the court explained, if fees were awarded for IPRs, then the district court would be placed in the odd situation of evaluating the exceptionality of conduct in which it had no involvement.

The Federal Circuit also refused to apply the fees award to counsel. According to the court, attorney liability is more appropriate in cases where statutes or rules expressly identify counsel as a liable party. Because the language of Section 285 is silent as to whether counsel may be found liable for attorneys’ fees, the court refused to extend it to counsel in this case. This outcome made particular sense here, where exceptionality was based on substantive litigation positions and not the manner in which the case was litigated.

Practice Tip: Defendants in litigation who choose to challenge validity before the PTAB should be aware that, if successful, they may not be able to recover attorney fees in the district court. Likewise, fees may never be recoverable in cases where a party is “judgment proof” because it is unlikely that a court will find counsel for that party liable for fees absent some form of litigation misconduct.

Dragon Intell. Prop. LLC, v. Dish Network L.L.C., Case Nos. 2022-1621 and 2022-1777 (Fed. Cir. May 20, 2024)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.