VIAVI Solutions Inc. v. Platinum Optics Technology Inc.

VIAVI Solutions Inc. v. Platinum Optics Technology Inc. The Federal Circuit affirmed the § 285 fee award, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the case exceptional based on Viavi's inadequate pre-suit investigation and its continued pursuit of claims after PTOT submitted evidence that the only charted filter was not sold after the relevant date. The court also found no clear error in the district court's treatment of Viavi's reliance on supply-chain information and a previously licensed filter. The decision reinforces that a patentee relying on circumstantial pre-suit evidence must still have a concrete basis for the accused product theory and must promptly reassess infringement contentions when contrary evidence eliminates the only charted product. Affirmed; costs awarded to PTOT. Viavi accused PTOT's 11246 Filter, or filters not materially different from it, but its complaint and infringement contentions charted only the 11246 Filter. PTOT submitted a declaration stating that the 11246 Filter was not designed for the relevant customer devices and had not been manufactured or sold after May 2020; Viavi did not dispute that evidence. The Federal Circuit held that the district court did not impose a categorical reverse-engineering requirement, but permissibly considered that Viavi could have obtained and inspected readily available consumer devices before filing. The court rejected Viavi's argument that it could keep the 11246 theory as a placeholder to seek discovery into other possible PTOT filters, characterizing that approach as an improper fishing expedition. The fee award was limited to fees incurred after PTOT filed the declaration, and the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's totality-of-the-circumstances exceptionality determination. attorney fees / sanctions infringement non-precedential attorney fees / sanctions infringement non-precedential attorney fees / sanctions infringement non-precedential