Caesar Rivise Wins Motion For Attorneys’ Fees In Exceptional Case
Posted on Apr 18, 2017 in News
In the case of Roxane Laboratories, Inc. v. Camber Pharmaceuticals Inc., InvaGen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Civil Action No. 14-042 (D.N.J.), the Honorable Stanley R. Chesler on April 12, 2017, granted defendants’ motion to have the case declared “exceptional” pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarded attorneys’ fees in an amount upwards of $2 million. The precise amount of fees will be determined by Judge Chesler at a later date.
The award of fees is the latest in a series of victories for the defendants in this case. Defendants previously succeeded in having the case transferred from Ohio to New Jersey, defeated Roxane’s motion for a preliminary injunction, and succeeded in having their construction of the claims adopted by the Court. Defendant’s claim construction was affirmed on a first appeal by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Roxane Labs., Inc. v. Camber Pharms., Inc., 596 Fed. Appx. 922 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and on a second appeal in Roxane Labs., Inc. v. Camber Pharms. Inc., 666 Fed. Appx. 899, *16 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 17, 2016), wherein the Federal Circuit also affirmed the transfer of the case from Ohio to New Jersey.
In his opinion, Judge Chesler criticized Roxane for providing expert testimony which attempted to expand the definition of a “size 00 capsule” beyond the intrinsic evidence to include a “family” of capsule sizes. Judge Chesler found the case exceptional “based on the objective unreasonableness of Roxane’s patent infringement claim”, stating that the Court did not even need to reach Defendants’ arguments about Roxane’s conduct of the litigation.
Judge Chesler further held that Roxane’s opposition to the fee award did not accurately represent the litigation and that its “historical revision is significant, since this Court concludes that one of the main reasons that Roxane’s infringement claim is objectively unreasonable is that it was not anchored in the intrinsic evidence.” In awarding fees, Judge Chesler found that pursuant to Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014), this case is “one that stands out from others” and that Roxane’s infringement claim was “exceptionally meritless”.