直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • IP Health Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Articles
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
  • Events
  • Webinars
  • Books

At the PTAB Blog

District of Delaware Does Not Award Attorney’s Fees for Voluntary IPR

November 23, 2021

By Marcelo Barros

Edited by Shannon M. Patrick; Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.

Holding

In Dragon Intellectual Pro. v. Dish Network, Civ. No. 13-2066-RGA, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215347 (D. Del. Nov. 8, 2021), the District of Delaware found that the case was an exceptional one and awarded attorney’s fees to the Defendants. Those fees, however, did not extend to fees incurred by the Defendants during their inter partes review.

Dragon filed suit against Dish Network and Sirius XM (“SXM”) for allegedly infringing US Patent No. 5,930,444, which is directed to a recording device. Dish and SXM subsequently sent separate letters to Dragon’s counsel asserting that their products, which record continuously from the time viewing or listening begins, could not infringe the asserted claims, which require that a user initiate a recording by pressing a record key.  Dish and SXM also noted that Dragon had disclaimed continuous recording devices during prosecution to overcome the examiner’s rejections. Dish then filed a petition for inter partes review of the asserted patent, which SXM later joined. While the IPR was pending, the district court held a claim construction hearing and determined that Dragon had, indeed, disclaimed continuous recording devices during prosecution, and the parties stipulated to non-infringement. Dish and SXM then filed motions for attorney’s fees under, inter alia, 35 U.S.C. § 285.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 285, a court may award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party “in exceptional cases.” The district court J found this to be an exceptional case. Because of Dragon’s “clear disclaimer in the intrinsic evidence” and its knowledge of non-infringement, this case “stood out from others with respect to Dragon’s substantive litigating position and was thus exceptional,” which allowed for an award of reasonable attorney’s fees.[1]

The attorney’s fees, however, did not include those fees incurred during voluntary IPR proceedings. Citing to Federal Circuit case law,[2]the Defendants argued that a “case” should be viewed as an “inclusive whole” and fees should be awarded.

However, the district court found clarification in a later Federal Circuit decision that “inclusive whole” only referred to district court and appellate proceedings.[3]Turning to the Defendant’s arguments that the IPR was filed because they “thought it was the most cost-effective way to resolve the case,” the district court found that the IPR was a voluntary, nonjudicial proceeding. Therefore, the court found no persuasive legal analysis authorizing attorney’s fees for the IPR proceedings.

Lastly, Defendants argued that Dragon’s former attorneys should be jointly and severally liable for any fee awards. Disagreeing, the court noted that federal courts follow a presumption that if the statute “does not explicitly permit a fee award against counsel, it prohibits it.” Because § 285 does not explicitly permit a fee award against counsel, the court found no basis to impose liability.


[1]See Dragon Intellectual Prop. v. Dish Network, Civil Action No. 13-2066-RGA, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215347, at *5-6, *8 (D. Del. Nov. 8, 2021).

[2]Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 745 F.3d 513, 516 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

[3]Amneal Pharms. LLC v. Almirall, LLC, 960 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2020).

Tags

attorney fees, estoppel, prosecution history estoppel

Related Practices

Post-Grant Proceedings

IPR, PGR, and CBM

Related Industries

Electronics and Information Technology

Electronic Devices and Components

Related Offices

Atlanta, GA

London

Palo Alto, CA

Contacts

Marcelo Barros
Associate
Palo Alto, CA
+1 650 849 6619
Email
Shannon M. Patrick
Associate
Atlanta, GA
+1 404 653 6558
Email
Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.
Partner
London
+44 (0)20 7864 2800
Email

Copyright © 2021 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Conference

Breaking the Concrete Ceiling: How Women of Color Overcome the Invisible Barrier

June 16, 2022

Washington, DC

Webinar

Patent Drafting for Cryptocurrency Innovations: Overcoming Eligibility Challenges, Minimizing the Risks of Rejection

June 14, 2022

Webinar

Virtual Seminar

13th Annual Ethics in the Practice of IP Law

June 10, 2022

Virtual

Conference

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Summit

June 10, 2022

Virtual

Seminar

Practical Tips: European and US IP Practice Seminar

June 9, 2022

London

Webinar

Manufacturing Monetization: Due Diligence Before Licensing or Litigating Your Patent Portfolio

June 8, 2022

Webinar

Charitable

Bridges from School to Work Gala 2022

June 8, 2022

Washington, DC

Webinar

ITC Litigation: Current Trends, Developments, and Strategies for Litigants

June 7, 2022

Webinar

Virtual Seminar

Patent Year in Review: Key Decisions, Trends, and Strategies

June 3, 2022

Virtual

Due to international data regulations, we’ve recently updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • EEO Statement

© 2022 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP