A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Entries for tag: § 285

Court Awards Fees After Patentee Asserts Invalid Claims, Flubs § 101 Briefing

Andrew E. Russell, Aug. 21, 2024
Exceptional Case Finding § 285

Money—Exactly the thing that this accused infringer may not actually wind up collecting
Money—Exactly the thing that this accused infringer may not actually wind up collecting Giorgio Trovato, Unsplash

We're back! During our brief intermission, the Court issued an exceptional case finding in Wireless Discovery LLC v. eHarmony, Inc., C.A. No. 22-480-GBW (D. Del.), and awarded fees.

I always like reading these opinions both (1) as a guide on what not to do and (2) to figure out how to better threaten NPEs with the risk of fee awards. I'm not sure this one is going to be particularly helpful in those regards, because there were some exceptional facts.

First, the patentee filed a patent that asserted previously invalidated claims. Worse, after the accused infringer called them …

View

Court Finds Case Exceptional, Awards Fees Against Plaintiff

Andrew E. Russell, June 10, 2024
Exceptional Case Finding § 285

"Did . . . did he just end our case with deposition testimony? Ah, I'm sure it will be fine." AI-Generated, displayed with permission

The Court unsealed a memorandum order yesterday in Sensormatic Electronics, LLC v. Genetec (USA) Inc., C.A. No. 20-760-GBW (D. Del. Mar. 27, 2024), where Judge Williams found a patent case exceptional, and awarded fees against the patentee plaintiff.

The Court previously held that one of the asserted patents, the '652 patent, was invalid because it was offered for sale after it was reduced to practice and more than a year before when the inventor applied for a patent.

In this order, the core cause of the exceptional case finding was that, after a …

View

Court's Concern that "Counsel Cannot Be Relied upon for 'Candor to the Tribunal'" Did Not Warrant § 285 Attorneys' Fees

Andrew E. Russell, July 15, 2022
§ 285 Candor to the Tribunal

Truth
Michael Carruth, Unsplash

Judge Andrews issued an interesting opinion today denying a requested $9 million attorneys' fee award in Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, C.A. No. 16-455-RGA (D. Del.).

There were a number of facts in defendant's favor, but not quite enough to get over the bar for fees under § 285. The one that most caught my eye was that the Court had previously expressed concerns about counsel's candor—a rare thing for the Court in the District of Delaware to do:

Defendants argue that the impropriety of Plaintiff's litigation conduct-including the lack of candor, forcing relitigation of lost issues, and the pattern of inappropriate conduct in previous cases-further proves that this case …
View

Section 284 Does Not Actually Say "Willfulness": Court Dismisses Willfulness Claim, Allows § 284 Treble Damages Claim to Proceed

Andrew E. Russell, Jan. 28, 2022
Willfulness § 285

Triple Damages
Marcel Eberle, Unsplash

We've written a lot on the developing case law in Delaware around willfulness and motions to dismiss. Willfulness requires knowledge of the infringement, and some of our judges have dismissed willfulness claims because the filing of a complaint for patent infringement cannot serve as the basis of knowledge of infringement.

Today, Judge Andrews followed that case law, and dismissed a willfulness claim in an amended complaint, stating that the original complaint cannot serve as a basis for establishing knowledge:

iFIT also alleges that Peloton knew of the '407 patent as of the filing of its original complaint. . . . I think this is irrelevant. My view is that an amended complaint cannot rely upon the …
View

No § 285 Fees Against Counsel

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 8, 2021
§ 285 Attorney's Fees

Back in August, Judge Hall shot down a plaintiff's attempt to recover its fees from counsel under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which provides for the award of "reasonable attorneys fees" in "exceptional cases." Today, Judge Andrews rejected several objections to Judge Hall's decision.

As set forth by Judge Andrews, the defendants' basic argument was that while earlier cases held that § 285 does not permit fee awards against attorneys, certain dicta in the Supreme Courts more recent Octane Fitness opinion changed that:

Defendants contend that the Magistrate Judge "overlooked" the Supreme Court's Octane Fitness opinion, in which the Court found that § 285 imposed "one and only one constraint on district courts' discretion to award attorney's fees in patent …
View

Expert's On-the-Stand Admission That He Changed Opinion after Speaking to Attorneys, Resulting in $444,000+ in Fees, Insufficient to Render Case Exceptional

Andrew E. Russell, July 26, 2021
§ 285 Trial

"Oh god. What did our expert just say?" Jamie Haughton, Unsplash

More and more NPE cases have moved to Delaware over the last few years, following TC Heartland. Defendants often try to deal with NPE cases by threatening fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, with varying degrees of success.

A § 285 fees opinion today by Judge Stark offers an interesting data point as to what kind of conduct is not sufficient to render a case as a whole exceptional under § 285, as well as a lesson on how to best to pursue a fees motion.

In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Trend Micro Inc., C.A. No. 12-1581-LPS (D. Del.), the patentee's …

View

Judge Hall Denies Attorneys' Fees, Rejects Argument That ANDA Suit Triggering 30-Month Stay Was Unreasonable

Andrew E. Russell, June 23, 2021
ANDA 30-Month Stay

Pills
HalGatewood.com, Unsplash

Judge Hall today issued an R&R on attorneys fees in In Re Kerydin (Tavaborole) Topical Solution 5% Patent Litigation, MDL No. 19-md-2884-RGA (D. Del. June 23, 2021), an ANDA case.

There, the plaintiff filed suit on four patents even though the PTAB had previously found an earlier patent in the family invalid in an IPR, and even though IPRs were pending on each of the four patents-in-suit.

Filing suit triggered the 30-month stay of FDA approval. Shortly after the suit was filed, one of the defendants moved to stay; plaintiff did not oppose, and actually filed a cross-motion to stay its own action against the other defendants (who opposed).

The Court granted the …

View

Archive