Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 2:15-cv-1202-WCB (E.D. Tex. July 18, 2017)

Editorial Summary

AI-assisted editorial summary; not attorney-reviewed. Verify against the opinion itself before relying on any characterization of the holding.

Prevailing plaintiff UroPep sought attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, arguing that Lilly's post-claim-construction defenses and its anticipation defense were exceptionally weak. Applying Octane Fitness's totality-of-the-circumstances standard, Judge Bryson concluded that Lilly's positions, while unsuccessful, were not so meritless as to make the case stand out from others, and that the case did not satisfy the high bar for fee-shifting. The motion was denied.