Cogent Medicine Inc. v. Skyscape.com, Inc. et al

Filing 51

ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte denying 43 Motion for Attorney Fees (rmwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12

COGENT MEDICINE, INC.,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

Case No. C-13-4483-RMW
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES

v.
PHYSICIANS INTERACTIVE HOLDINGS,
INC., PHYSICIANS INTERACTIVE, INC.,
AND SKYSCAPE.COM, INC.,

17

Defendants.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Defendants Skyscape.com, Inc., Physicians Interactive Holdings, Inc., and Physicians
Interactive, Inc., move for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Dkt No. 43. 1 In their motion,
defendants contend that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 because plaintiff Cogent
Medicine (“Cogent”) never had any evidentiary basis for its infringement claims against defendants.
See Dkt. No. 43, at 4. The court disagrees, for the following reasons: (1) Skyscape asks the court to
infer that Cogent had no evidentiary basis for its infringement claims from conduct which complied
with the Patent Local Rules; (2) the court construed none of the asserted patent’s terms and made no

26
1

27
28

When filed, defendants’ motion was untimely, as plaintiff Cogent Medicine’s claims had not yet been dismissed, nor
had judgment been entered. However, at the November 14, 2014 hearing on this motion, the parties agreed to: (1)
voluntarily dismiss all claims; and (2) entry of judgment for defendants. The court thereafter dismissed all claims and
counterclaims in this case and entered judgment in favor of defendants. Dkt. No. 50.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES
-1Case No. C-13-4483-RMW
EDB

1

determination regarding Cogent’s infringement claims; and (3) the McCrary declaration submitted

2

by Cogent is evidence of that Cogent adequately investigated the asserted patent and its

3

infringement claims against defendants before filing suit. Because the court finds that the totality of

4

the circumstances do not show this case to be exceptional under § 285, the court DENIES

5

defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees.

6
7

Dated: November 14, 2014

_________________________________
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Case No. C-13-4483-RMW
EDB

-2-