Published on:

Chief Magistrate Judge Thynge grants-in-part motion for fees under Section 285

In Magnetar Technologies Corp., et al. v. Six Flags Theme Parks Inc., et al., C.A. No. 07-127-LPS-MPT (D. Del. July 21, 2015), Chief Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge recommended granting-in-part Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees under section 285, but recommended denial of the motion for fees against Plaintiffs’ counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

The Court concluded that Plaintiffs’ litigation conduct was objectively unreasonable, making the case exceptional, in particular as to the asserted ‘125 patent that was ultimately found invalid by Chief Judge Stark in July 2014.  While the Court rejected a number of Defendants’ arguments regarding the frivolousness of Plaintiffs’ claims, improper motivation for the suit, and objectively unreasonable conduct, see id. at 11-18, the Court agreed that Plaintiffs’ arguments on inventorship for the ‘125 patent were objectively unreasonable — namely, that it was so obvious that an individual not named on the patent was an inventor that the argument he was not was unreasonable.  See id. at 18-21.  The Court also concluded that Plaintiffs’ reliance on its expert was objectively unreasonable because they “knew or should have known their expert’s opinion fell well short of the Daubert standard.”  Id. at 21.  The Court had granted Defendants’ Daubert motion due to the expert’s unreliable methodology, “strongly criticiz[ing] his entire infringement analysis” and had cited “a laundry list of unanswered questions” in the report.  Id. at 22.  The Court’s “criticism demonstrates that [the expert’s] report so lacked any reliable methodology under the Daubert analysis and [Rule 702] that it should have been apparent to plaintiffs.”  Id.

Having found the case exceptional based on inventorship issues and Plaintiffs’ reliance on its expert, the Court then narrowed the attorney fees available to Defendants to “reasonable attorneys’ and costs regarding the ‘125 patent related to incorrect inventorship since July 29, 2011 [when key inventor depositions occurred] and [Plaintiffs’] expert report when issued.”  Id. at 26.  Because Defendants’ current fee request was insufficiently detailed for the Court to determine whether, for example, the rates were reasonable, the Court ordered Defendants to address these issues in any subsequent modification.  See id. at 26-27.

The Court then recommended denial of Defendants’ request for fees against Plaintiffs’ counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.  The current counsel assumed representation after Plaintiffs’ prior counsel had withdrawn in 2008.  Id. at 5. The Court found no direct evidence that the new counsel knew the ‘125 patent was invalid due to incorrect inventorship, and rejected Defendants’ arguments as to unreasonable litigation conduct based.  See id. at 28-30.   Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that maintaining the suit on the ‘125 patent after Defendants’ counsel sent two letters regarding the weaknesses of the claims rendered counsel liable, where Plaintiffs’ counsel had “promptly” responded to the letters, explained “in detail” why it disagreed with Defendants’ argument, and “expressed a willingness to continue a good faith dialogue.”  Id. at 30.

Update:  On September 30, 2015, having considered Plaintiffs’ objections to the Report and Recommendation and Defendants’ subsequent response, Chief Judge Stark returned the issue of attorney fees to Magistrate Judge Thynge for additional findings.  See Magnetar Technologies Corp., et al. v. Six Flags Theme Parks Inc., et al., C.A. No. 07-127-LPS-MPT (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2015).  In a footnote, the Court also highlighted the need to comply with the Court’s rules regarding page limits for responses to Report and Recommendation objections (10 pages) and the requirement to file redacted public versions of sealed filings.  Id. at n.1.

 

Contact Information