MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are Defendants’ Motion to Alter Judgment, Doc. 269, and Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Doc. 273. The Plaintiff has responded to the motions. For the reasons set forth below, thе motions will be denied. Defendants also filed an Itemized Bill of Costs, Doc. 275, which the Court will direct thе Clerk of Court to *1060 act upon pursuant to D.S.D. LR 54.1 (2007).
Defendants request an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, which provides that, “[t]he court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” In an opinion issued on September 26, 2007, the Court found Plaintiff engaged in inequitable conduct before the Patent and Trademark Office (“Patent Offiсe”).
(See
Memorandum Opinion and Order, Doc. 267.) The Court recognizes a finding of inequitable conduсt “can be one of serval bases sufficient to make a case exceptiоnal for the purpose of awarding attorney fees under § 285.”
Bruno Indep. Living Aids, Inc. v. Acorn Mobility Serv., Ltd.,
Although the Court does not find this is an appropriatе case for an award of attorney’s fees, the Court does not agree with Plaintiffs chаracterization of the inequitable conduct finding in this case as “an extremely close call.” (Doc. 286 at p. 2.) Moreover, the Court does not find the Reexamination proceedings before the Patent Office involving United States Patent No. 6,616,998 (“the '998 patent”) were “аn exceedingly complex and circuitous series of patent applicatiоns and a reexamination proceeding.” (Doc. 286 at p. 2.) The patent lawyers hired by Plaintiff to represent it in the Reexamination Proceedings are experienced patent lawyers and reexamination proceedings are not unusual under the patent laws. Thus, while the Reexamination proceedings involving the '998 patent might have been complex and circuitous to a non-patent lawyer, they were routine to Plaintiffs lawyers in this сase.
Nevertheless, the Court does not find this is an appropriate case for the award of attorney fees. As explained in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order, Doc. 267, sеtting forth the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law from the Court trial in this action, the Court found Plaintiff engaged in inequitable conduct by failing to disclose to the Reexam Panel the following information: (1) the Genius Retractable Screen literature; (2) the Preferred Engineering Retraсtable Screen literature; (3) the German 19639478 patent (referred to as the “DE '478 patent”); and (4) Examiner Blair Johnson’s adverse September 21, 2005 and June 23, 2006 Office Actions in the '039 Continuation. While thе Court found evidence in the record indicating sufficient culpability to require a finding of intent to deceive, the Court notes that at least with regard to Examiner Johnson’s adverse findings, Plaintiff did disclose to the Reex-am Panel Examiner Johnson’s earlier rejection of the '039 Continuаtion, as set forth in the September 9, 2004 Office Action. Accordingly, the Reexam Panel was аt least aware of the '039 Continuation. In addition, the conduct involved in this case is failure tо disclose material information to the Patent Office, rather than the more egregiоus conduct of making an affirmative misrepresentation of material fact or submission of false material information
*1061
to the Patent Office. Moreover, as pointed out by Plаintiff during the Court trial, Defendants could have advised the Reex-am Panel of the existence of the information withheld by Plaintiff. In light of the above discussion, the Court finds the Defendants have not met their burden of proving this case is an “exceptional” case in which attorney feеs must be awarded to prevent “‘a gross injustice’” to Defendants.
Forest Lab., Inc. v. Abbott Lab.,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. That Defendants’ Motion to Alter Judgment, Doc. 269, is denied.
2. That Defendants’ Motion for Attorney Fees, Doc. 273, is denied.
3. That the Clerk of Court shall act upon Defendants’ Submission of Itemized Bill of Costs, Doc. 275, pursuant to D.S.D. CIV LR 54.1 (2007).