Paradox Security Systems, Ltd. et al v. ADT Security Services, Inc. et al, No. 2:06-cv-00462 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2009)

From the Opinion

The passage below is extracted verbatim from the opening of the document. It has not been editorially summarized — consult the full opinion for the court's complete reasoning.

Before the court is Defendant Protection One, Inc.’s (“P1”) Motion to Recover Attorney Fees Under 35 U.S.C. § 285. [Dkt. No. 324] The Court has carefully c onsidered the law and submissions of the parties. By its Motion, the defendants seek an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. The Court DENIES the Motion for the reasons expressed below. I. Introduction Plaintiffs Paradox Security Systems, Ltd. (“Paradox”), Shmuel Hershkovitz, and Pinhas Shpater (collectively “Plaintiffs”) brought this pa tent lawsuit against P1 and other defendants.