Court Won't Weigh Bid to Claw Back Fees While Third Circuit Mulls Venue for Appeal
A federal judge in Delaware on Tuesday delayed making any decision on a sanctions motion alleging Samsung had filed a "duplicative" suit, saying it would be "inappropriate and inefficient" to rule on the issue until a federal appeals court could review the case.
November 15, 2017 at 03:29 PM
4 minute read
A federal judge in Delaware on Tuesday delayed making any decision on a sanctions motion alleging Samsung had filed a “duplicative” suit, saying it would be ”inappropriate and inefficient” to rule on the issue until a federal appeals court could review the case.
The one-page order from U.S. District Judge Mark A. Kearney, at least for the moment, threw cold water on Imperium IP Holdings' bid to recover $247,000 in attorney fees in a breach-of-contract case.
That action, filed in Delaware came on the heels of a $21 million patent infringement ruling against Samsung Electronics Co. in a Texas federal court.
Imperium said that in filing the breach of contract action, the Korea-based electronics giant engaged in unnecessary and duplicative litigation, causing it to incur the legal expenses.
Imperium's Oct. 24 motion echoed Kearney's own criticisms just two weeks before that the Delaware suit was a “classic” example of tactical litigation meant to work around an adverse result in another jurisdiction. Samsung's “bad-faith” tactics, Imperium said, had qualified the case as exceptional under U.S. patent law, and the court retained the ability to award fees based on Samsung's decision to “unreasonably and vexatiously” multiply proceedings.
Samsung, which has appealed Kearney's dismissal, opposed the motion, saying an upcoming ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit could render moot Imperium's attempt to claw back fees. The Third Circuit last week directed both parties to address the proper venue appeal of the breach of contract claims, specifically why it should not be transferred to the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive jurisdiction over civil actions arising under U.S. patent laws.
In a one-page order, Kearney said the district court was not prepared to rule on the “exceptional nature of this case or find unreasonable conduct while the issues are before our court of appeals.”
But Kearney, a visiting judge from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, also appeared to clarify his position on Samsung's behavior, saying that he had seen no misleading or bad-faith conduct on the part of the electronics-maker. The earlier ruling, he said, intended only to stress that Samsung could not litigate the same issues in two places, and it should not have been taken as an invitation for Imperium to apply for fees.
“We did not intend to amplify a contested proceeding and trust experienced counsel will understand their success on one day on a contested issue is not a warrant for fee-shifting,” Kearney said in a footnote. “Before spending more of its litigation budget, we urge defendant to thoughtfully frame a renewed motion.”
Imperium may renew its motion for attorney fees within 30 days of a ruling from the Third Circuit. An attorney for the company did not comment on Kearney's ruling.
An attorney for Samsung was not immediately available to comment.
The breach of contract suit in Delaware is related to an action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, where Imperium won a $7 million jury verdict against Samsung for infringing patents for taking photos with an electronic device.
U.S. District Judge Amos L. Mazzant III of the Eastern District of Texas last year tripled the damages in the case, after finding Samsung had willfully infringed and repeatedly lied under oath.
Samsung has appealed the damage award to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
The Delaware case, now before the Third Circuit, is captioned Samsung Electronics v. Imperium IP Holdings.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllZoom Faces Intellectual Property Suit Over AI-Based Augmented Video Conferencing
3 minute readEtsy App Infringes on Storage, Retrieval Patents, New Suit Claims
Law Firm Sued for $35 Million Over Alleged Role in Acquisition Deal Collapse
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250