Federal Circuit Upholds Sanctions and Attorney’s Fees for Vexatious Litigation and Frivolous Appeal

Federal Circuit

Walker v. Health Int’l Corp., No. 2015-1676, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 246 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 6, 2017) (Before Reyna, Hughes, and Stoll, J.) (Opinion for the court, Reyna, J.)(Federal Circuit upheld district court’s award of attorneys’ fees and costs for vexatious litigation, and also sanctioned Walker and his attorneys for pursuing a frivolous appeal.).

Walker filed a patent infringement action against various defendants. Eventually, the only remaining defendant was HSN. Walker and HSN engaged in mediation which resulted in a Mediated Settlement Agreement (the Agreement), including an agreement that the action would be dismissed. Nevertheless, Walker continued to file motions, including an opposition to HSN’s Motion to Stay Deadlines based on the Agreement, and a motion to file an amended complaint. During the 3-months leading up until final dismissal, HSN was forced to continue its defense. HSN ultimately filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. The district court dismissed the action and awarded attorneys’ fees and costs to HSN due to Walker’s “vexatious actions” following the Agreement. Walker sought reconsideration of the dismissal and objected to the award of attorney’s fees six months later. The Court rejected Walker’s objections and Walker appealed.

On appeal, HSN filed a further motion for sanctions and requested attorneys’ fees and double costs. After Oral Argument, the Court ordered Walker to show cause why he should not be sanctioned.

The Court upheld the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees and costs, finding ample support in the record for Walker’s vexatious conduct, and no legitimate reason for Walker to continue litigating after the Agreement. Further, Walker’s arguments on appeal mischaracterized clear authority on the courts’ ability to award attorneys’ fees.

The Court also sanctioned Walker and his attorneys for pursuing a frivolous appeal and awarded attorneys’ fees and costs. Walker raised new arguments which made baseless ethical accusations against opposing counsel. Additionally, many times during the lawsuit and the appeal, Walker attempted to frustrate the settlement agreement while prolonging litigation and mischaracterized clear legal authority. Therefore, the Court exercised its discretion to sanction Walker and his counsel and award fees and costs to HSN.

Proceeding with aggressive litigation tactics after a final settlement, including efforts to challenge the settlement and amend the complaint may result in district court sanctions, including attorneys fees, and pursing such positions on appeal may be considered frivolous and subject to further sanctions.



The Author

Joseph Robinson

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.

Joseph Robinson

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.

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 as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 1 Comment comments.

  1. Douglas Weiner January 27, 2017 11:25 pm

    Thank you for this informative article.