• Home
  • About
    • Client Reviews
    • Patent Samples
    • Accolades
    • About Firm
    • Technologies
    • FAQs
  • Services
    • Patent
      • Utility Patents
      • Design Patents
      • Patent Application
      • Patent Defense
      • Patent Enforcement
      • Working with In-House Attorneys
    • Trademark
      • Trademark Search
      • Trademark Application
      • Trademark Enforcement
      • Trademark Defense
    • Licensing
    • Worldwide IP
    • Risk Management
    • Due Diligence
  • Industries
    • Browse Patent Samples
    • Automotive Patents
    • Construction Patents
    • Consumer Products Patents
    • Electronics Patents
    • Food, Beverage, & Other Culinary Patents
    • Manufacturing Patents
    • Medical Products & Devices Patents
    • Optics Patents
    • Software & App Patents
    • Tools & Equipment Patents
  • Learning Resources
    • First-Time Inventor?
    • Why Patent Your Invention in a Bad Economy?
    • Videos on Patents
    • Search 180+ Articles
      • Patent process
        • Overview of Patent Process
          • Patent process timeline and major milestones
          • Patent Process: Invention to Patent Granted (Simplified)
          • Patent process, overall steps and procedures
        • Overview of the examination process within the USPTO
          • Highs and lows of securing patent protection for your invention
          • What is the Patent Office procedure after filing a patent application?
        • Benefits of a Patent Search
          • What is a patent search and How to do it?
        • Patent attorneys, agents and the USPTO can help with the patent process
        • USPTO Website
      • Invention Agreements
        • What is an NDA and when to use them?
        • How to use a contract to protect your invention?
        • Working with others without losing your IP rights
        • Patent Assignments for Independent Contractors
        • Losing Invention Rights When Hiring or Collaborating with Others
        • Avoid Problems: Get an Invention Assignment Agreement
      • Protect Inventions
        • Misconceptions of Provisional Patent Applications
        • Do you need to get your patent attorney to sign an NDA?
        • Can a confidentiality agreement protect me like a patent application?
        • Four types of intellectual property to protect your idea and how to use them
          • Overview of Patents and Intellectual Property
          • Patent protection benefits and why every inventor should consider getting one
          • 8 tips to successfully protect your idea
          • Benefits of Patent Protection
          • Best uses for design patents
        • Reasons to only market your invention after securing patent pendency
          • Dangers of 1 yr grace period under first-inventor-to-file system
          • File a patent application before telling others about the invention
        • Risks and benefits of securing software patent protection
          • Strategy to overcome patentable subject matter rejection
        • Pros and cons of filing a continuation-in-part application
          • What is a continuation patent application?
      • How Patent Applications Work: the Basics
        • How to respond to an office action?
        • Request for non-publication of a patent application
        • Anatomy of a Patent Document
        • How to write a broad patent application?
        • Design patents: pros and cons
      • Patent costs
        • How much does it cost to get a utility patent?
        • Provisional Patent Application: Cheap Alternative?
        • Patent Cost Framework and cash flow
        • Provisional patent application: a cheap option?
        • Cheap provisional patent applications
      • Patent infringement
        • Basics of writing a patent claim for a patent application
        • Patent Marking: Everything you wanted to know
        • Avoiding Patent Infringement
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product?
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product? (Design Patent)
      • Worldwide patents
        • Pros and cons of securing worldwide patent protection and their steps
        • Foreign patent filing to secure protection in other countries
      • Responding to Office Actions
        • Overview of Office Actions
      • Trademarks
        • Trademark Registration: common law, state and federal
        • How to obtain a federal trademark registration?
        • How to select a trademark?
          • Protect your idea when pitching to an investor, potential licensee, or buyer
  • Schedule Consultation
  • Contact

Top-Rated Orange County Patent Lawyer | Helping Inventors in Orange County, Los Angeles County & Beyond | OC Patent Lawyer, Irvine CA

Orange County Patent Attorney

(949) 433-0900
You are here: Home / Patent Infringement / Patent Damages / When is fee shifting in patent litigation appropriate?

When is fee shifting in patent litigation appropriate?

July 31, 2017 by James Yang

Fee ShiftingUnder the American rule, each party to a lawsuit pays its own attorney’s fees. However, the American rule can be circumvented by statute enacted by the government or by contract through agreement by the parties. In patent litigation, fee shifting is appropriate by statute under 35 U.S.C. § 285.  Section 285 states that “the court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.”

Fee Shifting Standard

The Supreme Court in Octane defined exceptional cases or when fee shifting would be appropriate as “simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position (considering both the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated [Litigation Conduct].”

AdjustaCam, LLC v. Newegg, Inc. (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2017) is an example of a case when fee shifting would be appropriate both with respect to (1) the substantive strength of the plaintiff’s infringement allegations and (2) the unreasonable litigation conduct of the plaintiff.  In this case, AdjustaCam was the exclusive licensee of the patent and it was AdjustaCam that sued the defendant for patent infringement, not the patent owner.

Substantive Strength

AdjustaCam is the exclusive licensee of U.S.Pat. No. 5,855,343 (“’343 Patent”) which is directed to a camera clip that supports a camera both on a flat surface and when attached to a computer monitor. A drawing of the camera clip is shown below.

AdjustaCam Device

The claimed invention allows the camera to be rotatable via a hinge member rotatable about first and second axes of rotation.

Unlike the invention disclosed in the ’343 Patent, Newegg’s product (see below) uses a ball and socket joint, which facilitates rotation about multiple axes.

NewEgg Device

Because the claimed invention recited two separate rotating axes, the Exclusive Licensee had to argue that Newegg’s product also included a hinge that rotated about two separate rotating axes. In order to do so, the Excluisive Licensee argued that the constraint on Newegg’s ball-and-socket joint limited the rotation to a single axis at a time. (Emphasis in original).

When the complaint was first filed, the Federal Circuit found that the Exclusive Licensee had a weak patent infringement claim but that it was not baseless. However, during litigation, the District Court interpreted the claim language and defined the meaning of the claim language through a Markman order. The Markman order explained that:

“every reference to a ‘rotatably attached’ object in the specification and claims describes the attachment as permitting motion over a single axis of rotation,” and “[t]he claims plainly describe each ‘rotatably attached’ object as rotating about a single axis.”

The Federal Circuit found that after the Markman order, the allegations of patent infringement by Newegg’s products were now baseless because no reasonable factfinder could conclude Newegg’s products infringe the patent’s claims. The Federal Circuit stated that:

“Where AdjustaCam may have filed a weak infringement lawsuit, accusing Newegg’s products of infringing the ’343 patent, AdjustaCam’s suit became baseless after the District Court’s Markman order, where the court found ‘that the claims of the ’343 patent describe ‘rotatably attached’ objects as rotating over a single axis.” (Emphasis added).

For this reason, the Federal Circuit found that the allegations of patent infringement was substantively baseless.

Litigation Conduct

The Federal Circuit also appeared to suggest that AdjustaCam (i.e., exclusive licensee) exhibited patent trollish behavior in litigating the case. The Federal Circuit called out AdjustaCam’s conduct of asserting seemingly low damages against multiple defendants or settling with defendants for less than the cost of litigation. Although this conduct alone, according to the Federal Circuit, does not necessarily make the case exceptional under § 285, the Federal Circuit when looking at the totality of circumstances recognized that AdjustaCam asserted nuisance-value damages against many defendants, settled with them for widely varied royalty rates, and continued to press baseless infringement contentions well past an adverse Markman order and expert discovery.

Additionally, the Federal Circuit pointed to other instances of litigation misconduct in support of its conclusion that fee shifting under § 285 would be appropriate in this case. For example, the Federal Circuit identified AdjustaCam’s repeated use of after-the-fact declarations as another instance of litigation misconduct.  In discussing the after-the-fact declarations, the Federal Circuit noted in footnote 2 of the opinion that the conduct being reviewed was in reference to a pattern and not a one-off occurrence.

Based on the evidence above, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the case for further proceeding by the District Court with respect to fee shifting.

I invite you to contact me with your patent questions at (949)433-0900. Please feel free to forward this article to your friends. As an Orange County Patent Attorney, I serve Orange County, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego and surrounding cities.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Author

James Yang is a patent attorney. For more than 16 years, James Yang has been representing clients to secure patent protection for their inventions and register trademarks to protect their brands. If you need help, call him at (949) 433-0900. Read More…

Popular Posts

  • Patent process overview
  • Patent process explained
  • How much does a patent cost?
  • Why patent your invention in a bad economy?

Patent Book

Navigating the Patent System - new book by Orange County patent attorney, James Yang

Navigating the Patent System: Learn the patent process and strategies to protect your invention

Read for Free
Buy at Amazon

RECEIVE PATENT ARTICLES

Stay up to date on major changes and get tips on the patent process.

We respect your privacy.

Popular Posts

Patent process overview
Patent process explained
How much does a patent cost?
Trademark process and costs
Patent process and costs

 

Services

Utility Patents
Design Patents
Patent Prosecution Services
Patent Defense Services
Patent-Law Counsel for In-House Attorneys
Trademark Prosecution Services
See All Services

Industries

Automotive Patents
Consumer Products Patents
Culinary Patents
Manufacturing Patents
Medical Patents
Optics Patents
Software & App Patents
See All Industries

Contact

James Yang
OC Patent Lawyer
2372 Morse Ave., Suite #178
Irvine, CA 92614
Tel: (949) 433-0900

Connect

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn

Sitemaps

Sitemap: Pages | Sitemap: Posts

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

By accessing this blog, you agree that no attorney-client relationship is formed except by a subsequent written retainer agreement. Also, you agree to not send confidential information unless directed by me to do so. The information posted on this blog is legal information and not legal advice.
Complete Terms of Use
Complete Privacy Policy

ADA Compliance

OC Patent Lawyer aims to ensure that its services are accessible to people with disabilities.
Accessibility Statement

Service Area

From our office in Irvine, California, we serve clients from all areas within Orange County and Los Angeles County, California.

© 2023 · James Yang, Your Entrepreneur and Mid-Size Business Patent Attorney