O2 Media, LLC v. Narrative Science Inc., 1-15-cv-05129 (ILND January 3, 2017, Order) (Tharp, Jr., USDJ)
Thursday, January 5, 2017
Post-Alice Enforcement of Computer-Assisted Patent Does Not Warrant Attorney Fees Award Under 35 U.S.C. § 285
Following a dismissal for lack of patentable subject matter, the court denied defendant's motion for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 because plaintiff's litigation positions were not baseless. "Although some courts have considered the pursuit of a computer-assisted patent after [Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)] to be 'objectively baseless,' the Court finds that this suit was not frivolous. [Plaintiff] presented five potential 'innovative concepts' that might save the validity of the patents even if they were otherwise abstract under Alice. Although none of these concepts persuaded the Court that [plaintiff's] claimed inventions were patentable, the Court agrees with [plaintiff] that Alice did not require the plaintiff to give up any hope of enforcing patents previously granted by the Patent Office pursuant to its standard procedures."