AIA AMERICA v. AVID RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS:  August 10, 2017.  Before Newman, Lourie, and Hughes.

Takeaway:

• The Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial does not apply to requests for attorney’s fees under § 285 of the Patent Act.

• The district court did not err by making factual findings not foreclosed by the jury’s verdict.

Procedural Posture:

On appeal from E.D. Penn., the CAFC affirmed the district court’s award of attorney’s fees in a patent infringement suit.

Synopsis:

• Attorney’s fees: The CAFC affirmed the district court’s award of attorney’s fees to the defendants.  The Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial does not apply to requests for attorney’s fees under § 285 of the Patent Act.  Under the Tull test, requests for attorney’s fees under § 285 are equitable and do not invoke a right to a jury trial.  The district court did not err by making factual findings about AIA’s state of mind, intent, and culpability that were not precluded by the jury’s verdict.  Door-Master and Jurgens do not prevent a court, when deciding equitable issues, from making additional findings not foreclosed by the jury’s verdict.  AIA’s due process rights were not violated because the district court provided both parties the opportunity to submit and present any additional evidence, affidavits and arguments.