Federal Circuit: Attorneys Not Liable for Attorney’s Fees Where Law is Unsettled

https://depositphotos.com/145032543/stock-illustration-poster-in-hand-business-concept.htmlThe Federal Circuit recently reversed a decision of the Southern District of New York holding Gutride Safier LLP (“Gutride”), a firm representing the plaintiffs, AlphaCap Ventures, LLC (“AlphaCap”), jointly and severally liable for all expenses including attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by the defendant, Gust, Inc. (“Gust”) in a patent infringement suit.  The district court found the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 because, during litigation, the Supreme Court issued the Alicedecision which gave clear notice that AlphaCap’s patents directed toward crowdfunding were unpatentable under § 101.  The district court further concluded Gutride was jointly and severally liable for Gust’s attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 because of its unwillingness to settle pursuant to Gust’s terms despite knowing Alice doomed the claims and its statement that the case was “not worth litigating.” See Gust, Inc. v. AlphaCap Ventures, LLC, No. 2017-2414 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 28, 2018) (Before Wallach, Linn, and Hughes, J.) (Opinion for the court, Linn, J.)

On appeal, Gutride appealed only its joint and several liability for Gust’s attorneys’ fees.  28 U.S.C. § 1927 states:

“Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.”

In the Second Circuit, an award under § 1927 requires: (1) that claims were “entirely without color,” and (2) “were brought in bad faith—that is, motivated by improper purposes such as harassment or delay.” Both elements require “a high degree of specificity in the factual findings.”

A claim is entirely without color when it lacks any legal or factual basis.  Because of the relative paucity of § 101 cases between Alice and AlphaCap’s complaint, the law was unsettled.  The Federal Circuit noted that when the applicable law is unsettled, attorneys may not be sanctioned merely for making reasonable arguments for interpreting the law.  Further, the court found that Gutride presented a colorable argument that the claims were analogous to those in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com L.P., and therefore patent eligible under § 101.

[[Advertisement]]

Regarding the second prong, bad faith, the district found bad faith based on the following: (1) Gutride knew that AlphaCap’s patents were not patent eligible after Alicebut initiated the litigation anyway to extract a nuisance settlement; (2) Gutride litigated in the Eastern District of Texas and frivolously opposed transfer to the more convenient Southern District of New York; and (3) Gutride failed to end the case through settlement, dismissal, or a covenant not to sue.

First, the Federal Circuit found the district court gave Gutride’sstatement to Gust’s counsel that the case was “not worth litigating” improper weight to the contention that Gutride knew the patents were invalid.  Instead, the Court found the statement to be an assertion favoring settlement.  Gutride’sopposition to transfer venue from the Eastern District of Texas to New York did not constitute bad faith because the Easter District of Texas was a proper forum and “an attorney need not bring a case in the most convenient forum, but only a proper forum.” Finally, because the decision to settle and the terms of such settlements are matters within the discretion of the client, Gutride did not act in bad faith by refusing to end the case through settlement, dismissal, or a covenant not to sue

Accordingly, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s award of fees under § 1927 against Gutride.

Judge Wallach (dissenting)

Judge Wallach wrote against the majority, finding the Alice framework to provide sufficient basis that the claims at issue were patent ineligible.  More specifically, he found the claims “directed to data organization and use of customizable profiles to facilitate patronage,” which he determined to be abstract ideas.  Further, in his view, the claims lacked additional elements to rise to an inventive concept.  Therefore, he found Gutride’s lawsuit based on infringement of the asserted claims, entirely without color.

Regarding bad faith, Judge Wallach examined Gutride’sentire course of conduct to determine bad faith.  He found that Gutride elected not to settle early in the lawsuit and only made a showing of proper venue in the Eastern District of Texas after discovery.

Take Away

It may be difficult to establish attorneys acted “unreasonably and vexatiously” under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, thus exposing them to liability for fees and costs, if the dispositive issue in the lawsuit involves an area of unsettled law.  Further, under § 1927, attorneys do not necessarily act in bad faith simply because they either do not settle a case or bring the case in a less convenient, but still proper, forum. 

 

Image Source: Deposit Photos.

The Author

Robert Schaffer

Robert Schaffer is an intellectual property partner at Troutman Sanders. Bob applies more than 30 years of experience to IP counseling and litigation. His work includes patent procurement, strategic planning and transactional advice, due diligence investigations, district court patent cases, and Federal Circuit appeals. He regularly handles complex and high-profile domestic and international patent portfolios, intellectual property agreements and licensing, IP evaluations for collaborations, mergers, and acquisitions. In disputed court cases Bob’s work includes representing and counseling client in ANDA litigations, complex patent infringement cases and appeals, and multidistrict and international cases. In disputed Patent Office matters his work includes representing and counseling clients in interferences, reexaminations, reissues, post-grant proceedings, and in European Oppositions. For more information and to contact Bob please visit his profile page at the Troutman Sanders website.

Robert Schaffer

Joseph Robinson has over 20 years of experience in all aspects of intellectual property law. He focuses his practice in the pharmaceutical, life sciences, biotechnology, and medical device fields. His practice encompasses litigation, including Hatch-Waxman litigation; licensing; counseling; due diligence; and patent and trademark prosecution. He has served as litigation counsel in a variety of patent and trademark disputes in many different jurisdictions, and has also served as appellate counsel before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Joe also focuses on complex inter partes matters before the U.S Patent and Trademark Office, inventorship disputes, reexaminations and reissues. His experience includes numerous interferences, a particular advantage in new U.S. Patent and Trademark Office post-grant proceedings. He also counsels on patent–related U.S. Food and Drug Administration issues, including citizen petitions, Orange Book listing, and trademark issues. For more information and to contact Joe please visit his profile page at the Troutman Sanders website.

Robert Schaffer

Dustin Weeks is an associate in the intellectual property practice group at Troutman Sanders. His practice spans all areas of intellectual property law, including patent prosecution, patent litigation (including Hatch-Waxman litigation), and client counseling. He represents clients ranging from start-ups and solo inventors to Fortune 500 companies. Dustin works closely with his clients to learn their business objectives so that he can tailor strategies to procure, protect, and enforce their intellectual property. Dustin specializes in post-grant proceedings (e.g. Inter Partes Reviews) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) where he has extensive experience representing both patent owners and petitioners across a wide range of technologies, including wireless networking, pharmaceuticals, MEMs devices, medical devices, and electro-mechanical consumer devices. Dustin's broad experience in patent prosecution, counseling, and patent litigation uniquely positions him to navigate the blended practice of post-grant proceedings.

For more information or to contact Dustin, please visit his Firm Profile Page.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently No Comments comments. Join the discussion.

Post a Comment

Respectfully add to the discussion.

Name *
Email *
Website

Our website uses cookies to provide you with a better experience. Read our privacy policy for more information.Accept and Close