Federal Circuit Sends Back $444K Fee Award Against Intellectual Ventures
Delaware federal court Chief Judge Leonard Stark had found some of IV's conduct "exceptional," but said the case overall was not. The Federal Circuit ruled Thursday that while a single act of misconduct can support a fee award under the Patent Act, a district judge still must consider the context of the entire case.
December 19, 2019 at 07:54 PM
3 minute read
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has asked Chief U.S. District Judge Leonard Stark of the District of Delaware to take a second look at a $444,000 "exceptional case" fee award against Intellectual Ventures.
Cybersecurity and defense company Trend Micro Inc. obtained the award in 2018 in the wake of a posttrial judgment that IV's asserted patent claims were ineligible for patent protection.
Stark awarded fees because an Intellectual Ventures expert witness had changed key testimony on the witness stand from his deposition. The expert admitted that he had changed it, but IV's attorneys subsequently tried to argue that the expert had not actually changed his opinion.
That clearly irked Stark. Ruling from the bench, he found the case exceptional "solely with respect to this collection of circumstances" regarding the expert. As to whether the case overall was exceptional, "I find it was not," Stark said. But that doesn't preclude "the finding of exceptionality with respect to the limited partial relief that is being requested."
On appeal, IV and its Susman Godfrey counsel argued that fees can only be awarded for exceptional cases, based on the totality of the circumstances, and not for just "a single discovery issue."
Paul Hastings Pal Alto, California, partner Yar Chaikovsky called that "a rigid interpretation of Section 285" that would restrict fee awards only to "instances where the entirety of the case, from beginning to end, comprise exceptional conduct." The Federal Circuit itself has at times reduced fee awards on the grounds that the trial judge should have focused on particular misconduct, he argued.
This round went to IV and Susman partner John Lahad in Houston, who argued the appeal.
"Under the statute, the district court in this case should have determined whether the circumstances surrounding the expert's changed opinion were such that, when considered as part of the totality of circumstances in the case, the case stands out as exceptional," Stoll wrote.
In sending the case back to Stark for reconsideration, Stoll also clarified that "a district court has discretion, in an appropriate case, to find a case exceptional based on a single, isolated act," and can award partial fees for a limited set of conduct or circumstances.
"But in all such cases we have required a finding of an exceptional case—not a finding of an exceptional portion of a case—to support an award of partial fees," she wrote.
Judges Timothy Dyk and Richard Taranto of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concurred.
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 AllDoes the Treasury Hack Underscore a Big Problem for the Private Sector?
6 minute readTurning Over Legal Tedium to AI Requires Lots of Unglamorous Work on Front End
6 minute readDOJ, 10 State AGs File Amended Antitrust Complaint Against RealPage and Big Landlords
4 minute readClass Certification, Cash-Sweep Cases Among Securities Litigation Trends to Watch in 2025
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1South Florida Attorney Charged With Aggravated Battery After Incident in Prime Rib Line
- 2'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 3Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 4‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 5State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
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