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

E.D. Tex.

Calypso Wireless v. T-Mobile USA Inc, No. 2:08-cv-00441 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2014)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:08-cv-00441, Dkt. No. 341
Decided
March 20, 2014
Judge
Roy S. Payne, M.J.
Document
Memorandum Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM ORDER denies 326 Opposed MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs Pursuant to 35 USC 285 filed by T-Mobile USA Inc
Length
11 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 Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc.’s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 Against Plaintiffs Calypso Wire less, Inc., Drago Daic, and Jimmy Williamson, P.C.1 (Dkt. No. 326, filed April 2, 2013.) The Court, having review ed the Parties’ briefing and the motions referenced by the Parties’ briefin g, finds, for the reasons stated below, that T- Mobile’s motion is DENIED. APPLICABLE LAW “Section 285 provides that a ‘court in excep tional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.’” Lee v.