The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision on September 8, 2026 in Viavi Solutions Inc. v. Platinum Optics Technology Inc., affirming a Northern District of California ruling that awarded attorney's fees to Platinum Optics Technology Inc. (PTOT) after finding Viavi Solutions Inc. litigated its patent infringement claims in a manner that met the standard for an 'exceptional' case under 35 U.S.C. Section 285, IPWatchdog reported.

Viavi owns four patents covering low angle shift (LAS) optical filters used in three-dimensional sensing applications for mobile devices. PTOT, based in Taiwan, manufactures competing filters that also use hydrogenated silicon. The companies had previously litigated over LAS filters in Taiwan and China, a dispute resolved through licensing agreements that released PTOT from liability for infringement before May 1, 2020, but not for later conduct. Without obtaining any devices containing a PTOT filter, Viavi tested three PTOT filters retained from the earlier Asian litigation and determined that one — the '11246 Filter' — met a major manufacturer's specifications. After a letter regarding PTOT's sales activities went unanswered, Viavi sued in August 2020, attaching claim charts comparing its patents only to that filter.

PTOT moved for summary judgment, submitting a declaration stating it had neither designed the 11246 Filter for the manufacturer's devices nor sold it after May 2020. Viavi did not dispute the declaration but argued its theory extended to other, unidentified substantially similar filters. The case was stayed pending PTOT's unsuccessful inter partes review petitions; Viavi later obtained a device containing a different filter and moved to amend its contentions, but a magistrate judge denied the motion, and Viavi voluntarily dismissed with prejudice in May 2023. The district court denied sanctions, finding no subjective bad faith, but granted PTOT attorney's fees from January 20, 2021 — the date of the declaration — finding Viavi's pre-suit investigation lacking in diligence because it had no evidence that the 11246 Filter, or any PTOT filter, was sold in the United States, and that its continued reliance on that filter was objectively unreasonable.

Reviewing the exceptionality determination for abuse of discretion under Octane Fitness, the CAFC rejected each of Viavi's arguments. It found no improperly heightened investigation standard, distinguishing Q-Pharma and Intamin — the manufacturer's devices were readily purchasable, and Viavi's later purchase of those devices revealed the non-Viavi filter inside was not the 11246 Filter, showing a more thorough investigation would have prevented the suit. The court found no clear error in characterizing Viavi's information as a 'rumor' — Viavi's own counsel used the term at two hearings — nor in finding that Viavi had accused a license-released filter. Most pointedly, the court held the district court acted within its discretion in finding Viavi should have dropped its claims once they became untenable: 'There is no right to sue a party based on a nonmeritorious claim in hope of finding material that could be the basis of an actual meritorious claim.' The CAFC affirmed the fee award, with costs to PTOT.

Original Link: https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/08/cafc-affirms-fee-award-over-deficient-patent-pre-suit-investigation/