In Viavi Solutions Inc. v. Platinum Optics Technology Inc., No. 2025-1362 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2026) (nonprecedential), the Federal Circuit affirmed a partial attorney-fee award under 35 U.S.C. 285. The panel was Chief Judge Moore, Circuit Judge Stoll, and District Judge K. Michael Moore sitting by designation. District Judge Moore wrote the opinion.

What the case was about

Viavi owns U.S. Patents 9,354,369; 9,588,269; 10,222,526; and 9,945,995 on low-angle-shift optical filters used in 3D sensing. It sued Platinum Optics Technology (PTOT) in the Northern District of California, accusing a filter known as the 11246 Filter, or one not materially different, of reaching U.S. phones through a major customer. Viavi later dismissed the case with prejudice after it could not amend to add a different filter it found in a purchased device.

Why the district court awarded fees

The district court found the case exceptional in certain respects. It said Viavi filed without solid evidence that the 11246 Filter, or any PTOT filter, was actually in U.S. devices. It also said that after PTOT's January 20, 2021 declaration showed the 11246 Filter was not made or sold for that customer after May 2020, Viavi should have dropped the 11246 claims. Keeping those claims, the court said, forced unnecessary fees. Fees were limited to amounts incurred after that declaration. Sanctions under other fee rules were denied.

What the Federal Circuit held

The appeals court affirmed. It said the district court did not abuse its discretion under Octane Fitness. Pre-suit diligence and the way the case was litigated both supported exceptionality. Buying and checking a mass-market phone, the court noted, was something Viavi had done in other cases and eventually did here. Costs were awarded to PTOT.

What it means in plain terms

If you sue on a component inside someone else's phone, thin supply-chain rumors may not be enough once the other side puts hard facts on the table. Courts can shift fees when a plaintiff keeps a dead product theory alive. This opinion is nonprecedential, so it binds these parties, not every future case.

What to watch next

Watch whether district courts cite this disposition in other optical-filter or component cases, and how quickly defendants attach declarations that knock out a named SKU early.