In Carnegie Institution of Washington v. Fenix Diamonds LLC, Nos. 2024-1804 and 2024-1824 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 17, 2026), the court issued a nonprecedential opinion by Judge Reyna (joined by Judges Taranto and Stoll). The appeal followed summary judgment of noninfringement on U.S. Patents 6,858,078 and RE41,189, directed to methods for making lab-grown diamonds, and a later exceptional-case fee proceeding in S.D.N.Y. No. 1:20-cv-00200 (Judge Rakoff).
Path to the fee judgment
After summary judgment of noninfringement and a consent dismissal during the first appeal, the district court addressed Fenix's request for attorney fees and expenses. It found the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285 because plaintiffs continued objectively baseless infringement positions after receiving discovery about Nouveau's diamond-growing process. The court used July 14, 2020, one month after plaintiffs received that discovery, as the start date for the compensable work.
Holding on appeal
The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment for $3,240,669.66 in attorney fees and non-taxable expenses, plus post-judgment interest. Carnegie and M7D were jointly and severally liable. The attorney fees rested on section 285; the expenses rested on the district court's inherent power and required the higher standard for bad-faith or vexatious conduct. The court upheld both grounds. On Fenix's cross-appeal, it affirmed denial of pre-judgment interest, including the finding that the request was belated.
What it means
The opinion concerns both exceptional-case attorney fees under section 285 and an expense award under the court's inherent power. It illustrates the risk of continuing infringement positions after contrary evidence makes them objectively baseless, and why the legal basis for fees must be separated from the higher standard governing inherent-power sanctions.
What to watch next
Watch any further district-court collection or stay proceedings on the fee judgment. The underlying patents are 6,858,078 and RE41,189.