Trustees of Boston University v. Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (13-cv-12335).

This patent litigation resulted in the overturning of a jury verdict of infringement and invalidation of the sole asserted claim as not enabled. The claim , which covered semiconductors used in LED 2019s, recited a substrate consisting of a material selected from a group of six different compositions, with a non-single crystalline buffer layer grown thereon and a growth layer grown on the buffer layer. The term 201cnon-single crystalline buffer layer 201d was construed to cover polycrystalline, amorphous, or mixed polycrystalline and amorphous materials, and the Federal Circuit determined that the specification did not enable growing a growth layer on an amorphous layer. In June, on return to the District Court, Judge Saris allowed in part Defendants 2019 request for attorneys 2019 fees, finding that, while the case itself was not exceptional (while Boston University ultimately did not prevail, their argument initially prevailed at trial and in post-trial briefing at the District Court level, demonstrating that it was not without merit), the conduct of Boston University 2019s counsel in communications with Defendants 2019 counsel 201ccrossed the line of civility 201d and found that Defendants should recover the fees and costs associated with the two contempt motions they brought after Boston University 2019s counsel continued with the objectionable communications in violation of court orders. Judge Saris has now awarded $30,934 in fees, excluding time entries that did not relate or only partially related to the motions for contempt. She denied Defendants 2019 request for fees associated with briefing and arguing the fee request, however, finding her earlier fee award covered only the contempt motions and not the subsequent fee motion.