Whether the denial of additional attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 should be vacated if the Rule 11 sanctions are disturbed on appeal

QUESTION PRESENTED In this patent infringement case, the district court found that Cross-Respondents violated Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 (“Rule 11”) by repeatedly making frivolous arguments regarding venue and service of process. The court then awarded a portion of CrossPetitioner’s attorney fees as a sanction for the Rule 11 violation. At the end of the case, Cross-Petitioner moved under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (“Section 285”) for an award of attorney fees for the entirety of the case, including a conditional award of the fees already awarded if the Rule 11 sanctions were disturbed on appeal. The court rejected the request to award additional fees under Section 285 on grounds that the fees already awarded as Rule 11 sanctions were sufficient. It also rejected the request to conditionally award fees under Section 285 because it did not want to rule on a set of “hypothetical circumstances.” On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Rule 11 sanctions and the denial of additional fees under Section 285. The Federal Circuit did not reach CrossPetitioner’s argument that if the Rule 11 sanctions were disturbed on appeal, the denial of fees under Section 285 should be vacated. In Case No. 20-773, Cross-Respondents now ask this Court to reverse the Rule 11 sanctions. The question presented is: If this Court determines in Case No. 20-773 that the Federal Circuit erred in affirming the award of attorney fees as sanctions under Rule 11, should this Court also vacate the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of the denial of the motion for attorney fees under Section 285 given the district court’s reasons for denying that motion? -i