Joint Appendix One

!
I
!
!
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Case No.
Title:
PRESENT:
Case 2:10-cv-07678-JFW-DTB Document 159 Filed 12/27/11 Page 1 of 2 Page ID
#:3010
CV 10-7678-JFW (DTBx)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Futurelogic, Inc.-v-Nanoptix, Inc.
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Sandy Eagle None Present
Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:
None
PRIORITY SEND
Date: December 27, 2011
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DENYING NANOPTIX, INC.'S MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES [filed 11/29/2011; Docket No. 127]
On November 29, 2011, Defendant Nanoptix, Inc. ("Nanoptix") filed a Motion for Attorneys'
Fees. On December 19, 2011, Plaintiff FutureLogic, Inc. ("FutureLogic") filed its Opposition. On
December 23, 2011, Nanoptix filed a Reply. Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, the Court finds that this matter is appropriate for decision without
oral argument. The hearing calendared for January 9, 2012 is hereby vacated and the matter
taken off calendar. After considering the moving, opposing, and reply papers and the arguments
therein, the Court rules as follows:
"A determination whether to award attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 involves a two step
process. First, a district court must determine whether the prevailing party has proved by clear and
convincing evidence, that the case is 'exceptional.'" Forest Laboratories, Inc. v. Abbott
Laboratories, 339 F.3d 1324, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted). "Second, if the
district court finds the case to be exceptional, it must then determine whether an award of attorney
fees is appropriate." Id. at 1328.
"[O]nly a limited universe of circumstances warrant a finding of exceptionality in a patent
case: 'inequitable conduct before the PTO; litigation misconduct; vexatious, unjustified, and
otherwise bad faith litigation; a frivolous suit or willful infringement.'" Wedgetail, Ltd. v. Huddleston
Deluxe, Inc., 576 F.3d 1302, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Epcon Gas Sys., Inc. v. Bauer
Compressors, Inc., 279 F.3d 1022, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Here, Nanoptix contends that this case
is exceptional because (1) Mark Meyerhofer, inventor of U.S. Patent No. 7,594,855 ("the '855
Patent") committed inequitable conduct during prosecution of the '855 Patent; and (2) FutureLogic
filed this action in bad faith to drive Nanoptix out of business.
Page 1 of 2 Initials of Deputy Clerk se
-A0011 -