Plaintiff's arguments in the case show 'chutzpah' and 'some nerve', says US district judge
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, has ruled in favour of Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. in a patent infringement lawsuit and has awarded it US$207,543.60 in attorney’s fees.
The unsuccessful plaintiff in this case alleged patent infringement against Volkswagen. The plaintiff sought an injunction, future damages, and past damages. Volkswagen, in response, moved to dismiss the case.
The court granted Volkswagen’s motion to dismiss the case with prejudice. The court ruled that the plaintiff’s claims were meritless to the point of the case being considered exceptional for the purpose of granting fees.
The court rejected the plaintiff’s request to limit the legal fee award to only the exceptional portion of the case. Every aspect of the case was exceptional and frivolous, and the plaintiff’s misconduct impacted the entire litigation, the court reasoned.
The plaintiff never should have brought this proceeding, the court said. The court criticized the plaintiff’s allegations in this case as showing “chutzpah” and “some nerve” and refused to let the plaintiff escape the effects of the misconduct found.
The injunction and the future damages requested by the plaintiff were impossible to recover because the patent forming the basis of its claims had expired, the court explained. The plaintiff was also not entitled to past damages because it failed to establish compliance with the patent marking requirements under s. 287, title 35 of the U.S. Code, the court added.
The plaintiff had been dishonest about the existence of previous licensing agreements, the court noted.
Attorney’s fees
Next, the court assessed the fees requested by Volkswagen. In its motion, Volkswagen presented detailed billing records showing that three lawyers had worked a combined total of 256 hours on the case. The court deemed this amount of time – which included researching, briefing, presenting, arguing its motion, and engaging in discovery – reasonable.
“Although the facts of VDPP’s litigation misconduct are egregious, they arose in a specialized area of patent law – marking requirements,” wrote District Judge Lee Rosenthal for the court in VDPP, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. “Volkswagen had to do the work necessary to not only uncover the misconduct, but also to explain it to the court and to obtain appropriate relief.”
Volkswagen claimed that the hourly rate of the lead lawyer for this case was US$979, while of-counsel charged US$825 and local counsel charged US$600 per hour. Volkswagen then presented survey data on rates for the purpose of comparison. The court found the hourly rates in this case reasonable, given the lawyers’ extent of experience and area of focus.
“Attorneys command high fees,” wrote Rosenthal. “Attorneys specializing in patent cases, which are often technically as well as legally complicated, are no exception.”
