{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:cafc-25-1624-2026-09-30","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:cafc-25-1624-2026-09-30)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-17","fingerprint":"ewai:us:e7344b","proof":"sha256:f065cb1bb063773064af8cf847a18a8dc0453183c2df7f2ab9e88066d6df554f","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:cafc-25-1624-2026-09-30","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241","para_242","para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267","para_268","para_269","para_270","para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280","para_281","para_282","para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296","para_297","para_298","para_299","para_300","para_301","para_302","para_303","para_304","para_305","para_306","para_307","para_308","para_309","para_310","para_311","para_312","para_313","para_314","para_315","para_316","para_317","para_318","para_319","para_320","para_321","para_322","para_323","para_324","para_325","para_326","para_327","para_328","para_329","para_330","para_331","para_332","para_333","para_334","para_335","para_336","para_337","para_338","para_339","para_340","para_341","para_342","para_343","para_344","para_345","para_346","para_347","para_348","para_349","para_350","para_351","para_352","para_353","para_354","para_355","para_356"],"kind":"front_matter"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"United States Court of Appeals","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"for the Federal Circuit","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"______________________","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"EPIC TECH, LLC,","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"Plaintiff-Appellee","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"PEN-TECH ASSOCIATES, INC.,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"Defendant-Appellant","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"______________________","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"2025-1624","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"______________________","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Appeal from the United States District Court for the","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Northern District of Georgia in No. 1:20-cv-02428-VMC,","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"Judge Victoria M. Calvert.","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"______________________","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"Decided: September 30, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"______________________","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"L. CLINT CROSBY, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"& Berkowitz, PC, Atlanta, GA, argued for plaintiff-appel-","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"lee. Also represented by TYLER BISHOP.","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"RICHARD M. LEHRER, FisherBroyles LLP, Atlanta, GA,","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"argued for defendant-appellant. Also represented by","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"ALASTAIR JAMES WARR, Chicago, IL.","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"______________________","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"Case: 25-1624 Document: 47 Page: 1 Filed: 09/30/2026","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"EPIC TECH, LLC v. PEN-TECH ASSOCIATES, INC.2","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"Before MOORE, Chief Judge, CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judge,","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"and SUBRAMANIAN, District Judge.1","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"MOORE, Chief Judge.","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"Pen-Tech Associates, Inc. (Pen-Tech) appeals an order","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"of the United States District Court for the Northern Dis-","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"trict of Georgia denying Pen-Tech’s motion for sanctions","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and motion for","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"attorneys’ fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285, 28 U.S.C.","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"§ 1927, and the court’s inherent power. Because the court’s","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"order provides insufficient detail to permit meaningful re-","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"view, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"BACKGROUND","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"Epic Tech, LLC (Epic Tech) owns U.S. Patent","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"No. 8,545,317, directed to an electronic sweepstakes sys-","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"tem and method for connecting electronic gaming termi-","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"nals on a server network to facilitate an initial game with","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"a secondary game operating in the background. ’317 pa-","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"tent at Abstract, Figs. 1, 5. The ’317 patent issued in Oc-","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"tober 2013. J.A. 67. In a December 2013 office action, the","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) rejected","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"claims in a related application on nonstatutory double pa-","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"tenting grounds over claims of the ’317 patent.","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"J.A. 340–46. The Supreme Court decided Alice six months","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"later, describing a two-step test for assessing patent sub-","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"ject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Alice Corp.","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014).","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"Following Alice, the PTO reopened prosecution of the re-","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"lated application and rejected claims under § 101.","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"J.A. 369–70. Twice more, the PTO issued office actions re-","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"jecting claims in other related applications as unpatentable","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"under § 101. J.A. 398–401; J.A. 2226–35; see J.A. 1613–14.","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"1 Honorable Arun S. Subramanian, District Judge,","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"United States District Court for the Southern District of","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"New York, sitting by designation.","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"Case: 25-1624 Document: 47 Page: 2 Filed: 09/30/2026","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"EPIC TECH, LLC v. PEN-TECH ASSOCIATES, INC. 3","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"The § 101 rejections issued after Alice but before Epic Tech","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"filed the suit below. Epic Tech abandoned all three related","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"applications without overcoming the PTO’s § 101 rejec-","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"tions. J.A. 309; J.A. 311; J.A. 2136.","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"In June 2020, six years after Alice and two years after","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"(Baker Donelson) began prosecuting Epic Tech’s patent ap-","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"plications, Epic Tech sued Pen-Tech for allegedly infring-","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"ing claims 1–2, 4–5, 7–10, and 18 (asserted claims) of the","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"’317 patent. J.A. 86–103; J.A. 689. Pen-Tech counter-","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"claimed seeking declaratory judgment that the asserted","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"claims of the ’317 patent are invalid under § 101. J.A. 128;","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"see J.A. 2524–25. At that time, Epic Tech had already as-","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"serted a related patent against a different party, U.S. Pa-","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"tent No. 8,545,315,2 in the United States District Court for","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"the Southern District of Texas. First Am. Compl. at 34–37,","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"Epic Tech, LLC v. Fusion Skill, Inc., 4:19-cv-02400","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"(S.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2019), ECF No. 79 (“Fusion Skill”). The","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"Southern District of Texas, applying Alice, held the as-","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"serted claims of the ’315 patent ineligible under § 101.","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"Epic Tech, LLC v. Fusion Skill, Inc., 534 F. Supp. 3d 741,","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"746–47 (S.D. Tex. 2021), vacated, No. 4:19-cv-02400, 2022","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"WL 22887728 (S.D. Tex. June 6, 2022).3 Relying on that","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"order, Pen-Tech sought summary judgment of invalidity as","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"to the asserted claims of the ’317 patent before the court","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"below, in part, because those claims were allegedly similar","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"to the claims of the ’315 patent invalidated in Fusion Skill.","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"Pen-Tech’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 14–18, Epic Tech, LLC v.","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"Pen-Tech Assocs., Inc., No. 1:20-cv-02428 (N.D. Ga.","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"Sep. 25, 2023), ECF No. 79-2; see Fusion Skill, 534","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"2 The ’317 patent claims priority as a continuation-","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"in-part to the application that issued as the ’315 patent.","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"J.A. 67; J.A. 1613–14.","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"3 The court later vacated its summary judgment rul-","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"ing as part of the parties’ settlement. J.A. 273–77.","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"Case: 25-1624 Document: 47 Page: 3 Filed: 09/30/2026","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"EPIC TECH, LLC v. PEN-TECH ASSOCIATES, INC.4","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"F. Supp. 3d at 746. Epic Tech filed a cross-motion for sum-","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"mary judgment of infringement. See J.A. 2522. The court","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"granted Pen-Tech’s motion, denied Epic Tech’s motion, and","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"entered judgment declaring the asserted claims of the","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"’317 patent invalid under § 101. J.A. 2524–25.","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"Before the court entered summary judgment, Pen-Tech","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"moved for Rule 11 sanctions, contending Epic Tech and","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"Baker Donelson should be held jointly and severally liable","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"for Pen-Tech’s attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in Pen-","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"Tech’s defense against allegedly frivolous infringement","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"claims. J.A. 3, 10. According to Pen-Tech, Epic Tech re-","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"ceived notice of the asserted claims’ potential invalidity be-","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"fore and after filing its complaint when (1) Alice issued,","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"Pen-Tech’s Rule 11 Mot. at 2–3, Epic Tech v. Pen-Tech As-","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"socs., Inc., No. 1:20-cv-02428 (N.D. Ga. July 18, 2024), ECF","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"No. 120-1; (2) the PTO rejected patentably indistinct","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"claims under § 101 in three related applications, id. at 14–","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"21; and (3) the Fusion Skill court held similar claims of the","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"’315 patent invalid under § 101, id. at 4 n.6. These notices,","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"in Pen-Tech’s view, should have prompted Epic Tech to in-","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"vestigate the asserted claims’ validity before filing suit.","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"Pen-Tech also moved for attorneys’ fees and costs under","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"§ 285, § 1927, and the court’s inherent power based on the","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"same facts as its Rule 11 motion. J.A. 3; see Appellant’s","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"Br. 6.","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"The court recognized its summary judgment of invalid-","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"ity lent Pen-Tech’s allegations of frivolity “considerable cre-","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"dence.” J.A. 11. The court nevertheless denied Pen-Tech’s","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"Rule 11 motion, determining neither “Epic Tech [nor]","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"Baker Donelson’s conduct was so unreasonable as to be","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"frivolous.” J.A. 12. The court also declined to award attor-","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"neys’ fees and costs under § 285, § 1927, and the court’s in-","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"herent power because it determined the case was not","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"exceptional and Epic Tech had not unreasonably or vexa-","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"tiously litigated its case. J.A. 18, 20–21. Pen-Tech ap-","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"peals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"Case: 25-1624 Document: 47 Page: 4 Filed: 09/30/2026","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"EPIC TECH, LLC v. PEN-TECH ASSOCIATES, INC. 5","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"DISCUSSION","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"Pen-Tech argues we should (1) reverse the court’s de-","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"nial of Pen-Tech’s Rule 11 motion and motion for fees un-","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"der § 285, § 1927, and the court’s inherent power, and","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"(2) remand for a determination of fees owed. Because the","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"court did not sufficiently explain its rationale for rejecting","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"Pen-Tech’s theory of unreasonable conduct based on notice","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"of potential invalidity, we vacate and remand for further","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"I. Denial of Rule 11 Sanctions","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"We review denial of a motion for Rule 11 sanctions un-","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"der the law of the regional circuit, here the Eleventh Cir-","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"cuit. Source Vagabond Sys. Ltd. v. Hydrapak, Inc., 753","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Eleventh Circuit re-","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"views such denials for abuse of discretion. Thompson v.","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"RelationServe Media, Inc., 610 F.3d 628, 636 (11th Cir.","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"2010). “Rule 11 sanctions are warranted when a party files","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"a pleading that (1) has no reasonable factual basis; (2) is","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"based on a legal theory that has no reasonable chance of","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"success and that cannot be advanced as a reasonable argu-","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"ment to change existing law; and (3) is filed in bad faith for","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"an improper purpose.” Baker v. Alderman, 158 F.3d 516,","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"524 (11th Cir. 1998). Meaningful appellate review of a","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"court’s order denying a Rule 11 sanctions motion is possible","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"only if the court provides adequate explanation. See Har-","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"ris v. Heinrich, 919 F.2d 1515, 1516–17 (11th Cir. 1990).","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"Pen-Tech argues the court abused its discretion in","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"denying Rule 11 sanctions by discounting the notice sup-","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"plied by Alice, the PTO’s § 101 rejections in three related","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"applications, and the Fusion Skill order invalidating","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"claims in a related patent. Appellant’s Br. 22–32. We hold","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"only that the court’s order does not permit meaningful re-","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"view of its denial in light of Pen-Tech’s validity-based no-","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"tice theory.","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"Case: 25-1624 Document: 47 Page: 5 Filed: 09/30/2026","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"EPIC TECH, LLC v. PEN-TECH ASSOCIATES, INC.6","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"There were a number of strong indicators prior to the","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"filing of the suit at issue that the asserted claims were in-","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"valid under § 101. First, the Supreme Court decided Alice,","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"which not only affected patent subject matter eligibility un-","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"der § 101 after the ’317 patent issued, but also involved a","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"software patent. Second, the PTO determined claims in","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"two of the three related applications were patentably indis-","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"tinct from independent claims of the ’317 patent,","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"J.A. 342–46; J.A. 390–94, and rejected claims in all three","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"related applications under § 101 post-Alice. J.A. 369–70;","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"J.A. 398–401; J.A. 2226–35. Third, and again post-Alice,","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"the court in Fusion Skill held claims of the related ’315 pa-","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"tent ineligible under § 101.4 Fusion Skill, 534 F. Supp. 3d","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"at 746–47. These facts, taken together, created a compel-","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"ling concern over the validity of the claims before this liti-","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"gation was brought. In such circumstances, it does not","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"suffice for Epic Tech or its counsel to rely only on the pre-","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"sumption of validity when faced with multiple indicators","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"that these claims were unpatentable under § 101.","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"The court failed to address whether Alice put Epic Tech","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"on notice of its asserted claims’ potential invalidity. At","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"best, the court indirectly gestured toward Alice by referenc-","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"ing its earlier summary judgment ruling predicated on","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"§ 101. J.A. 11–12 (“In light of this Court’s [summary judg-","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"ment] Order, . . . Pen-Tech’s allegations have considerable","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"credence . . . .”). Despite acknowledging Pen-Tech’s asser-","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"tion that Alice should have prompted a pre-suit validity","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"analysis, J.A. 10, the court relied on testimony from Epic","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"Tech’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness regarding his “good faith, pre-","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"4 Pen-Tech alleges these claims are substantively","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"similar to those of the ’317 patent, Appellant’s Br. 6 n.2,","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"but neither the court nor the PTO appears to have deter-","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"mined that. See J.A. 13 (court recognizing only that the","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"invalidity holdings below and in Fusion Skill were “simi-","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"lar”). We do not address the issue of substantive similarity","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"in the first instance.","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"Case: 25-1624 Document: 47 Page: 6 Filed: 09/30/2026","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"EPIC TECH, LLC v. PEN-TECH ASSOCIATES, INC. 7","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"suit [infringement] investigation” to determine Epic Tech","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"met its pre-suit obligations. J.A. 12 (quoting Epic Tech’s","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"Resp. to Pen-Tech’s Rule 11 Mot. at 7, Epic Tech v. Pen-","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"Tech Assocs., Inc., No. 1:20-cv-02428 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 15,","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"2024), ECF No. 127). The court also determined Baker Do-","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"nelson met its pre-suit obligations by “creating a claim","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"chart and a cease and desist letter using images from Epic","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"Tech’s pre-suit [infringement] investigation.” J.A. 12. The","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"court’s reliance on Epic Tech’s and Baker Donelson’s pre-","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"suit infringement investigation, however, does not explain","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"why sanctions were unjustified under Pen-Tech’s notice","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"theory centered on validity. Those facts may bear on","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"whether Epic Tech reasonably investigated infringement","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"before filing suit, but they do not address the distinct ques-","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"tion of whether Epic Tech should have investigated validity","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"given the notice of potential invalidity Alice provided,","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"whether alone or in conjunction with the Fusion Skill hold-","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"ing and the PTO’s office actions.","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"The court also failed to adequately address whether the","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"PTO’s office actions served as notice of potential invalidity.","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"The court declined to view them as a form of notice because","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"“no court has found that the prosecution history of a later","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"patent can reach back and limit a claim using the same el-","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"ement in an earlier related patent.” J.A. 14. Yet Pen-Tech","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"did not invoke the office actions as claim-limiting prosecu-","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"tion history. Pen-Tech’s Rule 11 Mot. at 14–21, Epic","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"Tech v. Pen-Tech Assocs., Inc., No. 1:20-cv-02428 (N.D. Ga.","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"July 18, 2024), ECF No. 120-1. Instead, it argued the office","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"actions put Epic Tech on notice that claims in related ap-","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"plications, including claims the PTO determined were pa-","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"tentably indistinct from claims of the ’317 patent, had been","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"rejected under § 101 post-Alice. Id.; see J.A. 342–46 (reject-","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"ing claims in a related application for nonstatutory double","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"patenting); J.A. 369–70 (rejecting claims of the same appli-","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"cation under § 101 post-Alice); J.A. 390–401 (rejecting","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"claims of another related application for nonstatutory dou-","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"ble patenting and unpatentability under § 101 post-Alice);","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"Case: 25-1624 Document: 47 Page: 7 Filed: 09/30/2026","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"EPIC TECH, LLC v. PEN-TECH ASSOCIATES, INC.8","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"J.A. 2226–35 (rejecting claims under § 101 post-Alice in an-","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"other related application). The court’s rationale does not","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"squarely confront Pen-Tech’s notice theory. It fails to ex-","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"plain why those office actions, whether considered individ-","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"ually or collectively, were insufficient to serve as notice of","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"potential invalidity despite their substantive relevance to","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"the asserted claims. Given the absence of reasoning, we","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"are unable to meaningfully review the court’s decision.","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"The court’s analysis regarding the Fusion Skill holding","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"likewise fails to provide reviewable reasoning for the","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"court’s decision. Pen-Tech argues that Epic Tech should","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"have known it was unreasonable to pursue this litigation","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"when Fusion Skill invalidated claims in the related","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"’315 patent under § 101. Appellant’s Br. 34–35; see id.","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"at 13. The court’s only explanation for why that holding","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"would not have put Epic Tech on notice of the serious con-","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"cern over the validity of the related patent claims was that","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"“the issues were not the exact same.” J.A. 13. But the is-","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"sues need not be identical to provide notice of potential in-","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"validity. That is true taking Fusion Skill not only in","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"isolation, but also together with Alice and the PTO’s § 101","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"rejections in related applications. The court’s reasoning","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"did not suffice under these circumstances to permit mean-","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"ingful review by this court.5","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"We vacate the court’s denial of Rule 11 sanctions. We","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"do not decide whether Epic Tech or Baker Donelson vio-","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"lated Rule 11. Nor do we decide when notice of potential","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"invalidity renders continued assertion of a presumptively","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"valid patent unreasonable. We hold only that the court","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"5 At oral argument, Epic Tech was unable to identify","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"anything in the court’s analysis assessing the reasonable-","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"ness of Epic Tech’s validity position given the notice of po-","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"tential invalidity Pen-Tech alleged Epic Tech had received.","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"Oral Arg. at 17:56–20:00.","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"Case: 25-1624 Document: 47 Page: 8 Filed: 09/30/2026","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"EPIC TECH, LLC v. PEN-TECH ASSOCIATES, INC. 9","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"failed to provide a sufficiently reasoned explanation for re-","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"jecting Pen-Tech’s validity-based Rule 11 theory given Al-","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"ice, the PTO’s § 101 rejections of similar claims, and the","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"Fusion Skill order. In light of the unusually strong factors","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"pointing to the invalidity of the patent-in-suit, the court","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"needed to address—in some fashion—why Epic Tech’s","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"claim nevertheless had a “reasonable chance of success” or","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"could “be advanced as a reasonable argument to change ex-","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"isting law,” and was not brought “in bad faith for an im-","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"proper purpose.” See Baker, 158 F.3d at 524.","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"II. Denial of Motion for Attorneys’ Fees","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"Federal Circuit law applies to review of a § 285 analy-","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"sis. Waymark Corp. v. Porta Sys. Corp., 334 F.3d 1358,","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"1362 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Under § 285, “[t]he court in excep-","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"tional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the pre-","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"vailing party.” 35 U.S.C. § 285. An exceptional case is “one","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"that stands out from others with respect to the substantive","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"strength of a party’s litigating position . . . or the unreason-","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"able manner in which the case was litigated.” Octane Fit-","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"ness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545,","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"554 (2014). We review a court’s exceptionality determina-","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"tion for abuse of discretion. Gaymar Indus., Inc. v. Cincin-","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"nati Sub-Zero Prods., Inc., 790 F.3d 1369, 1372 (Fed. Cir.","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"2015). A court assessing exceptionality should indicate","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"“the reasoning underlying its decision to provide a basis for","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"meaningful appellate review.” AGI SureTrack LLC v.","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"Farmers Edge Inc., 176 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2026)","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"(quoting Superior Fireplace Co. v. Majestic Prods. Co., 270","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"F.3d 1358, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"We apply the law of the regional circuit when reviewing","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"the denial of fees and sanctions under § 1927 and the","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"court’s inherent power. Waymark, 334 F.3d at 1362 (dis-","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"cussing fees under § 1927); PS Prods. Inc. v. Panther Trad-","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"ing Co. Inc., 122 F.4th 893, 898 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (discussing","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"fees under the court’s inherent power). The Eleventh Cir-","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"cuit reviews such denials for abuse of discretion. Peter-","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"son v. BMI Refractories, 124 F.3d 1386, 1390 (11th Cir.","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"Case: 25-1624 Document: 47 Page: 9 Filed: 09/30/2026","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"EPIC TECH, LLC v. PEN-TECH ASSOCIATES, INC.10","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"1997) (reviewing denial under § 1927); Sahyers v. Prugh,","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"Holliday & Karatinos, P.L., 560 F.3d 1241, 1244 (11th Cir.","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"2009) (reviewing denial under court’s inherent power).","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"A court “must articulate the reasoning behind its . . . de-","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"nial of attorney’s fees in order to permit meaningful re-","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"view.” See United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg.,","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv. Workers Int’l Union AFL-","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"CIO-CLC v. Wise Alloys, LLC, 807 F.3d 1258, 1275","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"(11th Cir. 2015).","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"Pen-Tech argues the court abused its discretion by","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"denying attorneys’ fees and costs under § 285, § 1927, and","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"the court’s inherent power based on the same facts pre-","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"sented in its Rule 11 motion. Appellant’s Br. 6, 32–37. We","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"hold only that the court’s order does not permit meaningful","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"review of its denial in light of Pen-Tech’s validity-based no-","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"tice theory.","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"CONCLUSION","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"We vacate the court’s denial of Pen-Tech’s Rule 11 mo-","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"tion and motion for attorneys’ fees and costs under § 285,","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"§ 1927, and the court’s inherent power.6 We do not decide","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"whether Pen-Tech is entitled to those fees and costs. We","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"hold only that the court’s decision did not afford this court","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"the opportunity for meaningful review in light of the facts","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"of this case. We therefore vacate and remand for further","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"VACATED AND REMANDED","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"COSTS","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"Costs to Pen-Tech.","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"6 The court’s inherent-power ruling contains no in-","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"dependent analysis. J.A. 21.","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"Case: 25-1624 Document: 47 Page: 10 Filed: 09/30/2026","paragraph_id":"para_356"}],"word_count":3048,"cites":["573 U.S. 208","572 U.S. 545","753\nF.3d 1291","610 F.3d 628","158 F.3d 516","919 F.2d 1515","334 F.3d 1358","790 F.3d 1369","176 F.4th 1373","270\nF.3d 1358","122 F.4th 893","124 F.3d 1386","560 F.3d 1241","807 F.3d 1258"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"328027ee30be339a9f7255aa5627053ab05bc3900c4faf3ff6f96f330c1983db","source_url":"https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1624.OPINION.9-30-2026_2763904.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-02T09:58:04.549+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/cafc-25-1624-2026-09-30","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:cafc-25-1624-2026-09-30","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:cafc-25-1624-2026-09-30","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:cafc-25-1624-2026-09-30","verification":{"stored_sha256":"328027ee30be339a9f7255aa5627053ab05bc3900c4faf3ff6f96f330c1983db","recomputed_sha256":"328027ee30be339a9f7255aa5627053ab05bc3900c4faf3ff6f96f330c1983db","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-17T18:40:24.481Z"}},"hash":"sha256:f065cb1bb063773064af8cf847a18a8dc0453183c2df7f2ab9e88066d6df554f","version":"legal-2026-10-17","expires":"2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-17+legal-2026-10-17+2026-10-17T17:42:33","content_hash":"sha256:f065cb1bb063773064af8cf847a18a8dc0453183c2df7f2ab9e88066d6df554f","revalidate_after":"2026-10-17T19:40:24.658Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:cafc-25-1624-2026-09-30","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:cafc-25-1624-2026-09-30"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:cafc-25-1624-2026-09-30"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:cafc-25-1624-2026-09-30"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/cafc-25-1624-2026-09-30","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-ebcfb8772fa3afdc2f34502cd938b0de","response_hash":"sha256:f065cb1bb063773064af8cf847a18a8dc0453183c2df7f2ab9e88066d6df554f"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T06:07:54.369Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Acafc-25-1624-2026-09-30&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":14454}}