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

E.D. Tex.

Mears Technologies, Inc. v. Finisar Corporation, No. 2:13-cv-00376 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2015)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:13-cv-00376, Dkt. No. 133
Decided
December 21, 2015
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J.
Document
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Length
8 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 the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Dkt. No. 128, “Mot.”) filed by Defendant Finisar Corporation (“Finisar”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. Plaintiff Mears Technology, Inc. (“Mears”) opposes the motion. (Dkt. No. 129, “Opp.”). The Court, having reviewed th e Parties’ briefing and the evidence in light of the applicable law, and for the reasons stated below, finds that Fini sar’s motion for attorneys’ fees should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On May 3, 2013, Mears brought this action agains t Finisar alleging infr ingement of U.S. Patent No.