How Much Tsuris? A Whole Lotta Tsuris!
Patents are presumed valid, 35 USC 282(a), so it would be odd for a patentee suing for infringement to have to pay attorney fees to the accused infringer, since attorney fees in patent lawsuits are only awarded by courts “in exceptional cases,” 35 USC 285. Yet that’s just what happened to the patentee, Hawk Technologies, and a Federal Circuit panel upheld the award of attorney fees to the accused infringer for aggravation above and beyond the norm, known to some as “Tsuris”.
“Today has enough tsuris already!” appears in Matthew 6:34 (Complete Jewish Bible). Set aside the idea of a New Testament translation using modern Yiddish term, it’s true that many if not most days have sufficient tsuris (woe or aggravation), and some days clearly are worse than others. Aggravation above and beyond the norm was the result for a patentee in a recent Federal Circuit case, Hawk Tech. Sys. v. Castle Retail, No. 2024-1116 (Nov. 14, 2025).
Patents are presumed valid, 35 USC 282(a), so it would be odd for a patentee suing for infringement to have to pay attorney fees to the accused infringer, since attorney fees in patent lawsuits are only awarded by courts “in exceptional cases,” 35 USC 285. Yet that’s just what happened to the patentee, Hawk Technologies, and a Federal Circuit panel upheld the award of attorney fees to the accused infringer.
Hawk sued Castle on a patent it owned for a method of viewing multiple videos at the same time, as part of a video surveillance system. Castle moved to have the suit dismissed on the basis that the Hawk’s claims constituted patent ineligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. The court granted the motion to dismiss the suit on the basis of the invalidity of Hawk’s patent, and then Castle moved for attorney fees, which was the District Court granted. Hawk appealed.
In awarding attorney fees, the District Court cited the weakness “on its face” of Hawk’s patent, that Hawk had failed to engage in investigation before filing suit, that Hawk had filed numerous boilerplate suits involving the same patent, and that Hawk was “impolite and unprofessional” in settlement negotiations. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in the findings it made supporting the award of attorney fees. The panel quoted the Supreme Court that an exceptional case under 35 USC 285 is “simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position (considering both the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated” (quoting Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness, 572 US 545, 554 (2014). Here Hawk both had a weak case and engaged in conduct that, while not separately sanctionable, was fair game for consideration in whether an award of attorney fees was warranted.
In the end, Hawk offered a reminder that validity may be presumed, but good judgment is not. With a weak case, boilerplate filings, and unprofessional negotiating, the “tsuris” piled up until the fee award followed. As it turns out, there’s always enough trouble for today but when extra gets manufactured, the Federal Circuit is happy to send the bill.
The attorneys at Renner Otto strive to be authorities in all matters concerning the ever-evolving landscape of Intellectual Property; however, the information provided on our website is not intended to be legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship.
Contact us for more information or for a complimentary consultation.