She ruled that despite its behavior, Oplus' infringement allegations were not baseless and the case "followed an expected course of motion practice." As a result, "there is little reason to believe" that Vizio incurred significantly more litigation expenses than it would have otherwise, she said.
"Oplus alleged sufficient facts to support its claims, gathered limited discovery, and lost on summary judgment, as it would have even without its misconduct," so attorneys' fees are not appropriate, the judge concluded.
"Oplus alleged sufficient facts to support its claims, gathered limited discovery, and lost on summary judgment, as it would have even without its misconduct," so attorneys' fees are not appropriate, the judge concluded.
http://www.law360.com/articles/507269/vizio-denied-fees-trol...