Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

E.D. Tex.

S.O.T.A.T., Inc. et al v. Frank's International, Inc. et al, No. 2:06-cv-00523 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2008)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:06-cv-00523, Dkt. No. 93
Decided
December 16, 2008
Judge
See opinion
Document
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION AND ORDER - The court finds that the defendants have failed to meet their burden by clear and convincing evidence that fees are warranted under either 35 U.S.C. Section 285, or 28 U.S.C. Section 1927. The court, there…
Length
6 pages

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 Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Sanctions (Dkt. No. 84). The court has carefully considered the law and submissions of the parties. By its Motion, the defendants seek an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Section 285 and 28 U.S.C. Section 1927. The court DENIES the Motion for the reasons expressed below. I. INTRODUCTION AND FACTS In this patent case, Plaintiffs Alan Grant Bode as Executor of the Estate of Robert E. Bode, and S.O.T.A.T. Inc. asserted that Defendants Frank’s International, Inc.