Where petitioner's patent infringement claims were not finally rejected until the district court judge approved the Magistrate Judge's ruling disposing of same, can petitioner's conduct in pressing its claims in the meantime and before that final ruling by the district court be relied upon to conclude that petitioner 'knew or should have known' its claims were baseless so that this was an 'exceptional' case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 justifying an award of respondents' attorney's fees?

Questions Presented 1. Where petitioner’s patent infringement claims were not finally rejected until the district court judge approved the Magistrate Judge’s ruling disposing of same, can petitioner’s conduct in pressing its claims in the meantime and before that final ruling by the district court be relied upon to conclude that petitioner “knew or should have known’ its claims were baseless so that this was an “exceptional” case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 justifying an award of respondents’ attorney’s fees? 2.Is the Magistrate Judge’s decision rejecting petitioner’s infringement claims—a decision to which it timely objected—a final ruling so that petitioner should have known that its claims were baseless even when that ruling had not yet been adopted by the district judge as a final disposition? i