Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01453/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01453-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 

---

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JAKE LEE, AN INDIVIDUAL,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

MIKE'S NOVELTIES, INC., A TEXAS 

CORPORATION, DBA MIKE'S WORLDWIDE

IMPORTS, MANISCH CHANDER, AN INDIVIDUAL, 

AKA MIKE CHANDER, AKA MANISCH CHANDRA, 

AKA MIKE CHANDRA, 

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2014-1453

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Central District of California in No. 2:10-cv-02225-JAKJC, Judge John A. Kronstadt.

______________________ 

Decided: June 23, 2015

______________________ 

ANTHONY H. HANDAL, Handal & Morofsky, LLC, Fairfield, CT, for plaintiff-appellant.

LOUIS F. TERAN, SLC Law Group, Pasadena, CA, for 

defendants-appellees. 

 

Case: 14-1453 Document: 64-2 Page: 1 Filed: 06/23/2015
2 LEE v. MIKE'S NOVELTIES, INC. 

______________________ 

Before DYK, MOORE, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge WALLACH. 

PER CURIAM.

Jake Lee appeals a decision of the Central District of 

California denying Lee’s request for attorney’s fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. In a previous appeal in this case, 

we reviewed a determination by the district court that the 

case was exceptional and that attorney’s fees should be 

awarded. We held that as a matter of law the infringement had not been willful. Lee v. Mike’s Novelties, Inc., 

543 F. App’x 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2013). On remand, the 

district court was “to determine whether [defendants’] 

litigation misconduct is independently sufficient to make 

this an exceptional case such that attorney’s fees are 

warranted.” Id. at 1018

On remand, the district court initially held that “[t]he 

three forms of litigation misconduct [at issue] are insufficient to find that the case is exceptional, and that attorney’s fees should be awarded.” S.A. 4. Lee appealed to our 

court. Thereafter, the Supreme Court decided Octane 

Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health and Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 

1749 (2014), and Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management Systems Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1744 (2014). Upon a 

motion by the plaintiff, the district court subsequently 

issued an indicative ruling pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 62.1 reaffirming its decision not to award 

fees under the new standard of Octane and Highmark. 

The district court held that, under Octane, “[c]onsidering 

the totality of the circumstances, given that the ‘evidence 

was close’ and the litigation misconduct was ‘modest,’ 

there is not sufficient basis to conclude that Defendants 

maintained an exceptionally weak litigating position or 

advanced exceptionally meritless claims.” S.A. 11. ThereCase: 14-1453 Document: 64-2 Page: 2 Filed: 06/23/2015
LEE v. MIKE'S NOVELTIES, INC. 3

fore, the district court ruled that it would not award fees 

under the new standard.

On appeal, Lee argues that the original attorney’s fee 

award (which was the subject of the first appeal) should 

be reinstated in light of Octane and Highmark. We see no 

basis for reinstating the original district court decision, 

particularly given the district court’s determination not to 

award fees under the new Octane standard and the 

standard of deferential review under Highmark. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Costs to appellees. 

Case: 14-1453 Document: 64-2 Page: 3 Filed: 06/23/2015
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JAKE LEE, AN INDIVIDUAL,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

MIKE’S NOVELTIES, INC., A TEXAS 

CORPORATION, D/B/A MIKE’S WORLDWIDE 

IMPORTS, MANISCH CHANDER, AN INDIVIDUAL, 

A/K/A MIKE CHANDER, AKA MANISCH CHANDRA, 

A/K/A MIKE CHANDRA, 

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2014-1453

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Central District of California in No. 2:10-cv-02225-JAKJC, Judge John A. Kronstadt.

______________________ 

WALLACH, Circuit Judge, concurring.

While I agree with the panel’s decision to affirm the 

district court’s denial of attorney fees, I write separately 

to address the behavior of Mr. Teran, counsel of Appellees 

Mike’s Novelities, Inc. 

The district court’s Attorney Fees Order identified 

three different categories of litigation misconduct supporting its initial award of attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. 

Case: 14-1453 Document: 64-2 Page: 4 Filed: 06/23/2015
2 LEE v. MIKE’S NOVELTIES, INC. 

§ 285. Specifically, the district court found Mr. Teran

threatened to file complaints of professional misconduct 

by Lee’s counsel based on unsubstantiated assertions that 

Lee’s counsel “intimidated and threatened [Mike Novelties’] customers.” S.A. 4. The court also found Mr. Teran 

employed bad faith litigation tactics because he failed to 

produce required documents during discovery. Finally, 

the court found Mr. Teran made intimidating statements 

during settlement offers that belied the district court’s

rulings on claim construction and summary judgment. 

It is ironic Mr. Teran sought to gain leverage in the 

litigation before the district court by threatening to report 

Lee’s counsel for potential violation of the California and 

New York Rules of Professional Conduct, while that very 

action potentially violated Rule 8.4(c) of the American Bar 

Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct 

(“MRPC”).1 

Mr. Teran’s unsupported representations regarding 

the court’s determinations on claim construction and 

summary judgment, his failure to produce required documents during discovery, and his attempt to intimidate 

opposing counsel via unsubstantiated accusations constitute actions that fail to maintain the integrity of the 

profession. 

1 Rule 8.4(c) of the MRPC states “[i]t is professional 

misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” 

 

Case: 14-1453 Document: 64-2 Page: 5 Filed: 06/23/2015