February 11, 2010 - 9:00am
What a Difference a Day Makes: Juniper v. GraphOn Posted by:

On November 24, the Court dismissed Juniper's claims of infringement, and GraphOn's counterclaims, with prejudice, based on a covenant not to sue that Juniper had given to GraphOn, which the Court concluded eliminated the existence of a case or controversy under Article III of the Constitution.  Fifteen days later, GraphOn filed its motion for attorney fees.  Unfortunately for GraphOn, the motion was a day late; under Rule 54(d)(2)(B)(i), motions for attorney fees are due within fourteen days of the entry of judgment.  The Court denied the motion, finding that GraphOn's excuse that it miscalculated the due date was insufficient to constitute excusable neglect under Rule 6.  GraphOn has appealed both the dismissal and the denial of its motion for fees to the Federal Circuit.  GraphOn's brief is due March 8. 


PATracer also has a discussion of this case here.  See our previous discussion of this case here


Please click here to return to the homepage of the Rocket Docket IP Litigation Blog.