Here is the 13 page PDF file brief, filed Friday afternoon -- and a bit:
. . . .Merck’s argument that the Court should exclude Gilead’s fees related to summary judgment and claim construction (ECF No. 475-4 at 3-4) is wrong and unsupported. That Gilead did not prevail on specific issues raised during the course of this case is irrelevant; under established law, an award of fees for the entire case is warranted if it “bear[s] some relation to the extent of the misconduct.” Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d 816, 831 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
This Court held that Merck’s misconduct “casts a darkness on this entire case” and infected “this entire case.” [See ECF No. 422 at 60-61 (emphasis added).] Where, as here, the “litigation misconduct. . . was ‘pervasive’ enough to infect the entire litigation . . . a full award of attorney fees was proper.” Monolithic Power Sys. v. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd., 726 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2013). An award of fees for the entire case is warranted due to Merck’s misconduct having infected “the entire case. . . .”
Onward, as the light, fluffy, flying snows approach here, on a busy-departures Sunday morning. . . [I should also have said Friday that the particulars of thy appeal are unique, in all my travels and experiences. . . truly unmatched, in all the world (a river, runs flawless warm, and silvery smooth, there). . . .] smile.