July 17, 2020
Authored and Edited by Katherine T. Leonard; Samhitha Muralidhar Medatia; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC, No. 2019-2087 (Fed. Cir. July 1, 2020), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the District Court’s denial of attorney fees to ShoppersChoice.com.
Electronic Communication Technologies (“ECT”) sued ShoppersChoice in September 2016 alleging infringement of a patent directed to travel status notification. ShoppersChoice challenged patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 via a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the district court granted. ShoppersChoice then filed a motion for attorney fees, which the district court denied.
In its motion for fees, ShoppersChoice presented evidence of ECT’s manner of litigation, including sending standardized demand letters and filing hundreds of repeat patent infringement actions for the purpose of obtaining low-value license fees and forcing settlements. ShoppersChoice also filed the opinion of another case involving ECT and the same patent-in-suit. See Kindred Studio Illustration & Design, LLC v. Elec. Commc’n Techs., LLC (“True Grit”), Case No. 2:18-cv-07661-GJS, 2019 WL 3064112, at *6–9 (C.D. Cal. May 23, 2019). In True Grit, the court outlined ECT’s practice of seeking nuisance-value license fees, and failing to take cases to a merits determination despite asserting the patent-in-suit and related patents 875 times. Despite this evidence, the district court ultimately denied ShoppersChoice’s motion after finding the case was not exceptional, but the district court applied the Lanham Act instead of 35 U.S.C. § 285.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees, concluding that the district court’s evaluation under the incorrect attorney fee statute and its failure to address ECT’s pattern of litigation abuses constituted an abuse of discretion. The Court specifically pointed to the ample evidence of ECT’s manner of litigation presented in the True Grit opinion. The Court vacated and remanded, directing the district court to apply the correct attorney fee statute, 35 U.S.C. § 285, as opposed to the Lanham Act, and to consider ECT’s “manner of litigation and the objective unreasonableness of ECT’s infringement claims” when assessing the totality of circumstances.
exceptional case, attorney fees, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), Lanham Act
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.
At the PTAB Blog
IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in February 2024
April 16, 2024
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.