IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION Juniper Networks, Inc., Plaintif£, ve Case No. 9cVv287 (GBL) GraphOn Corporation and Vertical Marketing, Inc., Defendants. ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Declare Case Exceptional and for Attorneys’ Fees and Non-Taxable Costs Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Dkt. No. 173); Graphon Corporation’s Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. No. 181); Defendants’ Motion for Expedited Briefing on Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. No. 183); and Juniper Networks, Inc.'s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motion to Declare Case Exceptional and for Attorneys’ Fees and Non-Taxable Costs Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Dkt. No. 186). On November 24, 2009, the Court dismissed Juniper Networks, Inc.’s ("Juniper") claims and Graphon Corporation’s (“GraphOn”) counterclaims in light of a covenant not to sue issued by Juniper in favor of Defendants. (Dkt. Nos. 161 & 168.) On November 25, 2009, the Clerk entered the Order and closed the case. On December 10, 2008, Defendants filed their Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Non- Taxable Costs Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. Plaintiff moves the Court to strike Defendants’ Motion as untimely pursuant toFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B) (i). The Court grants Plaintif£’s Motion to Strike because Defendants’ Motion was untimely filed and Defendants fail to make a showing of excusable neglect. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 provides that a motion for attorneys fees must “be filed no later than 14 days after the entry of judgment” unless a statute or court order provides otherwise. Feo. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B)(i). “[Alny claim to attorneys fees must be processed in compliance with Rule 54(d) (2) (B)." IPXL Holdings, LLC. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “[Nlo provision in section 285 [of the Patent Act] exempts requests for attorney fees there under from compliance with Rule $4(d)(2)(B).” Id. The filing of a motion for attorneys fees pursuant to Rule 54 is an act required to be done “within a specified amount of time." See Fep. R. Civ. P. 6(b); Gaskins v. BFI Waste Servs., LLC, 281 Fed. Appx. 255, 259 (4th Cir. 2008). As such, Rule 6(b) (2) prevents a court from extending the filing deadline unless the party seeking fees establishes that its failure to timely file was the result of excusable neglect. See FED. R. civ. P. 6(b) (2). Excusable neglect is an equitable concept, and courts will consider “the relevant circumstances surrounding the party's omission” to determine whether an extension is warranted underRule 6(b)(2). Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). However, “inadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes construing the rules do not usually constitute excusable neglect.” Id. at 392. Here, the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion to Strike because Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Non-Taxable Costs was untimely filed and Defendants fail to establish excusable neglect. The Court's November 24, 2009, Order constituted a final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54. Because the Clerk entered the Order dismissing the case on November 25, 2009, Defendants had until December 9, 2009, to file their Motion. Defendants filed their Motion on December 10, 2009, and thus the Motion was untimely. Defendants fail to establish that their untimely filing was due to excusable neglect. Defendants argue that their delay was due to a miscalculation given the intervening Thanksgiving holiday and the fact that the Court's Order did not state that dismissal was “with prejudice.” The Court finds Defendants’ xeasons insufficient to establish excusable neglect. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 makes clear that intervening holidays are included in the fourteen days allowed for a Rule 54(d) (2) (B) motion. Defendants’ miscalculation does not constitute excusable neglect. Furthermore, to the extent that Defendants were unclear about whether the Court’s Order dismissing the case for lack ofjurisdiction constituted a dismissal with prejudice, Defendants could have moved for clarification. As such, the Court finds Defendants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees untimely and grants Plaintiff's Motion to Strike. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Juniper Networks, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motion to Declare Case Exceptional and for Attorneys’ Fees and Non-Taxable Costs Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Dkt. No. 186) is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Expedited Briefing on Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. No. 183) is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Graphon Corporation’s Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. No. 181) is DENIED AS MOOT. It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to Declare Case Exceptional and for Attorneys’ Fees and Non-Taxable Costs Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Dkt. No. 173) is DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Order to counsel. Entered this Lf day of December, 2009. Alexandria, Virginia Gerald Brave tow United States Distriot Judge