January 2, 2020
Authored and Edited by Regan J. Rundio; Samhitha Muralidhar Medatia; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
*Correction: This post was first published on January 2, 2020. The title has been changed to more accurately reflect the contents of the Federal Circuit opinion.
In Blackbird Tech LLC v. Health in Motion LLC, No. 2018-2393 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 16, 2019), the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s award of attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 where the patentee’s litigation conduct was unreasonable, its infringement contentions were meritless, and where fee-shifting served the court’s interest in deterring future abusive litigation.
The Federal Circuit found Blackbird Tech’s litigation conduct unreasonable, citing its “nuisance value settlement offers,” unreasonable delays in document production, and filing an unanticipated notice of dismissal on the eve of trial. Despite its voluntarily dismissal, Blackbird asserted that its litigation position was nonetheless “eminently reasonable, and likely correct.” The Court disagreed, holding that the accused product lacked a key claim element. Had Blackbird exercised “even a modicum of due diligence,” the weakness of its contentions would have been manifest. And the section 285 award therefore did not need to be conditioned on the accused infringer providing clear notice of that weakness.
Finally, the Court affirmed the district court’s latitude in deterring “future abusive litigation” through fee-shifting. This interest was especially compelling here where none of Blackbird’s 100+ infringement lawsuits had ever reached a final decision on the merits. Given the totality of the circumstances, the Federal Circuit held that the district court was within its discretion to label this case “exceptional.”
Copyright © 2020 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.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Due to international data regulations, we’ve 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.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.