March 12, 2014 – The District Court for the Southern District of California denied Mauna Kea Technologies’ Motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §285 against Anticancer, Inc. Although the judge held the case as “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C §285, Mauna Kea Technologies did not submit sufficient proofs to meet its burden to justify reasonable attorney fees relating to the alleged baseless counterclaims. Mauna Kea Technologies filed a declaratory judgment action in June 2011 seeking a determination that the endoscopic imaging technique, CellVizio, that it markets does not infringe any claim of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,232,523, 6,235,967, 6,235,968, 6,251,384, 6,649,159, 6,759,038, and 6,905,831. The patents are directed to methods of using fluorescent imaging and diagnostic detection of tumors using fluorescent imaging. This case is before District Court Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo.
View Attachment (PDF)