Federal Circuit Throws Out $2 Million Award to Nvidia and Sony

Feb 26, 2015

Reading Time : 1 min

Biax initiated the lawsuit by suing Nvidia, graphics chipmaker, and Sony in 2009 for infringement of two patents. Judge Brimmer dismissed the case in 2012 but granted defendants' request to force Biax to pay their attorneys' fees. Biax subsequently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Judge Brimmer ruled at the time that Biax had shown bad faith in pressing forward with its case even though his claim construction left open no possibility for infringement, making the case exceptional. Last year, the Supreme Court issued two cases—Octane Fitness v. Icon Health & Fitness and Highmark v. Allcare—which relaxed the standard for finding a case exceptional. Although Judge Brimmer made his ruling under a higher bar for fee shifting, the Federal Circuit stated that Biax rightfully pursued its lawsuit due to uncertainty in Judge Brimmer’s Markman order, and the sanctions could not stand even under the easier standard outlined by the Supreme Court decisions.

The Federal Circuit found that defendants did not prove the case was “objectively baseless” or that it was brought in bad faith. The court stated that “[b]ecause neither the expert testimony nor the claim construction orders foreclosed Biax’s position and there was nothing unreasonable about Biax's infringement position, the basis for the district court’s award of fees no longer exists.” The Federal Circuit ultimately found that “even applying the deferential standard of review under Highmark, the district court's fee award must be set aside.”

Biax Corp v. Nvidia Corp., No. 13­1649 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2015).

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

July 22, 2026

The Court of Federal Claims recently denied the United States’ motion to dismiss a patent infringement suit related to production of a COVID-19 vaccine. The court held that it had jurisdiction because the plaintiff filed its claim there before it filed a parallel suit in a district court and because it adequately pleaded the government’s involvement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 13, 2026

In a precedential and sua sponte Director Review decision, USPTO Director Squires recently vacated three related institution decisions nearly six months after institution where a district court later found the challenged claims invalid. Because the fourteen-day deadline to request Director Review of the institution decisions had passed, the Director used this opportunity to formally extend the deadline in two ways. First, he extended the fourteen-day deadline under 37 C.F.R. § 42.75(c)(1) to thirty days, which “puts requests for Director Review of decisions to institute trial on equal footing to requests for Director Review of final decisions or decisions not to institute trial.” Second, he outlined certain “exceptional circumstances” that warrant a further extension of the deadline to account for changes in the case that “surface after the deadline.” In the case at hand, the Director found the district court’s invalidity finding to be such an “exceptional circumstance” and ultimately initiated review and vacated the institution decisions on that basis.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 5, 2026

The Supreme Court unanimously held that for a complaint of induced infringement, a patent owner must allege that the accused infringer took affirmative, not passive, steps to encourage direct infringement. Thus, where a generic drug has a skinny label, to induce infringement of the carved-out patented use of the drug, the generic company must have taken steps that were designed to cause others to perform the patented use, not just steps that could cause such conduct.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 07, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois granted a summary judgment motion of no invalidity based on indefiniteness because the qualitative terms like “sufficiently slow” and “desired period of time” were definite when viewed in light of the surrounding claim language and specification.

...

Read More

© 2026 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.