Standing, exceptional case issues reviewed by CAFC in Propat

In another case on standing, the CAFC determined that Propat, a bare licensee, did not have standing.

The first case cited was Sicom v. Agilent, 427 F.3d 971. Another case cited was Speedplay v. Bebop, 211 F.3d 1245.

The CAFC found that EVEN IF the patent owner were made co-plaintiff, there was not enough interest, citing to an old case, Crown v. Nye, 261 US 24 (1923). The policy issue was to avoid "stirring up litigation."

There was also an issue of exceptional case under 35 USC 285. The CAFC cited the district court that both parties' counsel "fell far short of a model prosecution and defense." There was a vaxatious litigtion issue under 28 USC 1927.