- AMS-Osram 22-2185.pdf

• Contractual fee shifting via an indemnity/hold-harmless clause under California law: An indemnity clause can authorize fee recovery in a direct breach-of-contract action between the contracting parties where its text expressly covers “any and all” losses/liability, including attorneys’ fees, suffered “as a result of” breach of the agreement’s obligations, indicating intent to cover direct (not only third-party) claims.

- Escapex IP 24-1201.pdf

• Whether the case was 'exceptional' warranting fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.: A district court may find a case exceptional under the totality of circumstances where the patentee failed to conduct an adequate pre-suit investigation and pursued objectively baseless claims, particularly after receiving early, focused notice of the deficiencies and nevertheless continuing the litigation.
• Whether the district court could consider party correspondence and non-responsiveness in the § 285 analysis.: In assessing exceptionality, a court may consider pre- and in-suit communications showing the patentee was put on early notice that its positions were baseless and that continued litigation supports compensation and deterrence rationales for fees.

- Focus Products 23-1446.pdf

• (no holding tagged to this category)

- Future Link 23-1056.pdf

• Prevailing-party status after court-ordered dismissal with prejudice following plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal: A defendant is a prevailing party for purposes of § 285 and Rule 54(d)(1) when the action ends in a dismissal with prejudice that bears judicial imprimatur and materially alters the parties’ legal relationship by barring reassertion of the same patent claims against the same accused products, even absent a merits adjudication.