Monday, February 22, 2016

Plaintiff’s Decision To Sue Customers Instead of Suppliers Does Not Warrant Attorney Fee Award

Following remand, the court again denied defendant's motion for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 because plaintiff's litigation tactics were not exceptional. "[Defendant] emphasizes that [plaintiff] filed 70 infringement actions across the country against customers who use the accused live chat technology on their websites-rather than the suppliers making and selling the technology in a ploy to get the suppliers to intervene and pay for settlement licenses. [Defendant] further asserts that [plaintiff's] lack of diligence in discovery and deficient infringement contentions demonstrate a lack of intent to ever pursue this case on the merits. . . . While [defendant] criticizes [plaintiff] for bringing suit against customers who use the live chat technology, rather than the suppliers who make and sell the technology, I cannot find this case exceptional simply because Plaintiff did something that is expressly allowed and contemplated by the Patent Act."

Pragmatus Telecom LLC v. Newegg Inc., 1-12-cv-01533 (DED February 18, 2016, Order) (Andrews, J.)

No comments: