Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03779/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03779-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:183 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AFFYMETRIX, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff and Counterdefendant,

 v.

MULTILYTE LTD., a British corporation,

Defendant and Counterclaimant.

 /

No. C 03-03779 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION 

FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND

VACATING HEARING

INTRODUCTION

In this patent-infringement action, wherein summary judgment of non-infringement has

been granted both on theories of literal infringement and doctrine of equivalents, plaintiff

Affymetrix now moves for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285. Because this

order finds that this was not an exceptional case, the motion is DENIED.

STATEMENT

The procedural history of this action has been discussed thoroughly in prior orders and

will not be repeated in similar detail here. Briefly, Multilyte Ltd. is the assignee of the three

patents-in-suit: United States Patent Nos. 5,599,720, 5,432,099 and 5,807,755. The technology

described therein relates to biological assays using binding agents to detect the concentration of

analytes. Affymetrix manufactures and sells DNA microarray systems which utilize

oligonucleotide probes to detect the presence of complementary target strands via hybridization.

Case 3:03-cv-03779-WHA Document 334 Filed 08/05/05 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Affymetrix filed this declaratory-judgment action on August 13, 2003, alleging

non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability of defendant’s patents. In response,

defendant Multilyte asserted counterclaims of infringement. The proceedings were stayed in

part on December 12, 2003, pending reexamination proceedings of the patents-in-suit. On May

27, 2004, all proceedings were stayed. At a status conference held on December 2, 2004, the

parties revealed that multiple reexaminations (requested by both sides) were (and still are)

underway.

To avoid prolonging the stay indefinitely, the Court cautiously proceeded with claim

construction and issued an order on February 22, 2005. Therein, four disputed claim terms

were construed: (1) “binding agent;” (2) “determining the ambient concentrations;”

(3) “loading a plurality of different binding agents . . . onto a support means;” and (4) “a

plurality of spaced apart small spots.” At a status conference shortly thereafter, Multilyte urged

the Court to engage in further claim construction on the term “binding agent,” which had been

defined to mean “a molecule used in an immunoassay that is capable of binding to an analyte

and has an affinity constant (measured at equilibrium) of 1013 liters/mole or less,” to explicitly

include or exclude oligonucleotide probes because it would be a “case-dispositive issue”

(March 3, 2005 Hearing Tr. at 3:13–23). The parties were simultaneously granted leave to file

dispositive motions.

On April 28, 2005, two orders were issued. The first order granted Multilyte’s motion

for further claim construction. In particular, the Court commented that it had relied upon a

misstatement by Multilyte’s counsel at the Markman hearing in framing its previous definition. 

“Binding agent” was re-construed to mean “a molecule conventionally having one or at most

two binding sites and an affinity constant (measured at equilibrium) of 1013 liters/mole or less.” 

“Binding site” was then construed to mean “the region of a protein capable of binding to an

analyte.” Thus, the revised definition of “binding agent” expressly included antibodies, binding

proteins, receptor fragments and other proteins or protein fragments, but excluded DNA, RNA,

oligonucleotides and any other molecules comprised solely of nucleic acids. 

Case 3:03-cv-03779-WHA Document 334 Filed 08/05/05 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

The second order granted Affymetrix’s motions. Specifically, summary judgment of

non-infringement was granted because the accused products did not utilize any proteins or

protein fragments as “binding agents.” The unopposed motion based on the phrase “loading a

plurality of different binding agents . . . onto a support means” was also granted. The Court

declined to reach the issue of whether Affymetrix was also entitled to summary judgment based

on the phrase “determining the ambient concentrations.” Judgment was entered accordingly.

Multilyte subsequently moved to amend judgment, on the basis that infringement under

a doctrine of equivalents theory had not been considered. This motion was granted on May 17,

2005, at which time the case file was re-opened and an expedited briefing schedule was set. On

June 23, 2005, summary judgment of non-infringement under the doctrine of equivalents was

granted. Final judgment was entered for Affymetrix the same day. Multilyte promptly filed a

notice of appeal. Now, Affymetrix moves for an award of attorney’s fees.

ANALYSIS

1. LEGAL STANDARD.

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285, “[t]he court in exceptional cases may award reasonable

attorney fees to the prevailing party.” The determination of whether a case is exceptional and,

thus, eligible for an award of attorney’s fees is a two-step process. The district court must first

determine whether the case is exceptional, a question of fact reviewed for clear error. If the

case is exceptional, then the district court must then decide whether an award is appropriate. 

The latter determination is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Cybor Corp. v. Fas Techs., 138

F.3d 1448, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1998)(en banc). At the second step, various factors must be

considered “such as the closeness of the case, tactics of counsel, the conduct of the parties and

any other factors that may contribute to a fairer allocation of the burdens of litigation as

between winner and loser.” J.P. Stevens Co., Inc. v. Lex Text Ltd., Inc., 822 F.2d 1047, 1051

(Fed. Cir. 1987).

The party seeking the award of fees must establish that the case is exceptional by clear

and convincing evidence. A case may be exceptional where there has been inappropriate

conduct such as willful infringement; fraud or inequitable conduct in procuring the patent;

Case 3:03-cv-03779-WHA Document 334 Filed 08/05/05 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

litigation misconduct; vexatious or unjustified or otherwise bad faith pursuit of objectively

baseless claims; violations of FRCP 11; or similarly unprofessional behavior. Brooks Furniture

Mfg., Inc. v. Dutailier Int’l, Inc., 393 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

2. APPLICATION.

It is undisputed that Affymetrix is the prevailing party. Multilyte, however, urges the

Court to conserve judicial resources and defer ruling on this motion (or deny the motion without

prejudice) pending appellate review, as the issue of attorney’s fees would likely be revisited in

the event of a remand. While this may be true, ruling on the motion now will render it

unnecessary for the Federal Circuit to remand solely for consideration of this issue if the

decision on the merits is upheld.

In an attempt to establish that this case is exceptional, Affymetrix argues that Multilyte

filed counterclaims of infringement that were objectively baseless. In addition, it asserts that

Multilyte has engaged in a pattern of litigation misconduct, including a series of discovery

abuses. This order finds that Affymetrix has failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing

evidence that any of the alleged conduct makes this case exceptional.

a. Baseless litigation.

The assertion of infringement of a duly granted patent is presumed to be made in good

faith. Id. at 1382. To justify an award of attorney’s fees, Multilyte’s infringement

counterclaims must be (1) brought in subjective bad faith and (2) objectively baseless. Id. at

1381–82. Here, the continued maintenance of its infringement counterclaims, even assuming

arguendo that there was bad faith, was never objectively baseless. Multilyte’s theory of

infringement would have been plausible had the Court adopted, rather than rejected, its

proffered construction of the claim terms. 

With regard to the “loading” phrase, Affymetrix argues that Multilyte refused to

withdraw its claims of infringement after the (unfavorable) claim construction order issued. 

Yet, the summary-judgment motion with regard to this phrase was unopposed and both sides

agree that Multilyte notified Affymetrix the day before dispositive motions were due that it

planned to concede non-infringement of the “loading” claims (Br. 4; Opp. 9). While the Court

Case 3:03-cv-03779-WHA Document 334 Filed 08/05/05 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

appreciates Affymetrix’s apparent frustration that it had already wasted time briefing the issue,

this order finds no clear and convincing evidence of any misconduct that would make this case

exceptional.

As to the “determining” phrase, it should be stressed that the order of April 28, 2005

declined to reach whether summary-judgment was appropriate on this issue. As such, the Court

made no finding that Multilyte’s theory of infringement with respect to this claim limitation was

unreasonable or frivolous. Affymetrix points to testimony from a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition

taken on April 4, 2005, wherein Multilyte “admitted” that it didn’t know whether any users of

the accused products ever expressed their results in terms per unit volume, per weight or per

parts (Opp. 3). Affymetrix’s characterization of this testimony as “studied ignorance” is

rejected. Indeed, the non-expert discovery deadline was not until August 12, 2005, leaving

Multilyte ample time to continue investigating whether there were triable issues of fact to

survive any future motion for summary judgment.

Although not specifically raised by Affymetrix, this order expresses some skepticism as

to whether Multilyte had a credible basis for continuing to litigate its infringement claims after

April 28, 2005. As noted in a prior order, Multilyte’s counsel had represented that it would

enter into a “stipulated judgment and take this matter to the Federal Circuit” if further claim

construction on the term “binding agent” produced an unfavorable result (March 3, 2005

Hearing Tr. at 4:10–17; 7:14–18). Instead, Multilyte moved to alter or amend the judgment,

raising a (possibly waived) doctrine of equivalents theory. It then opposed the subsequent

motion on the (arguably flimsy) grounds that the specific exclusion principle did not apply

because the Court’s clarifications as to which types of molecules were “binding agents” were

“findings of no literal infringement, not further claim construction” (Opp. to SJ on DOE at 5). 

This wasted both Affymetrix’s time and the Court’s time. That said, this order hesitates to

reach the conclusion that Multilyte’s position was objectively baseless or in bad faith.

b. Litigation Misconduct.

Affymetrix further argues that Multilyte provided inadequate infringement contentions

that failed to take into account how “binding agent” had been construed. While the Court does

Case 3:03-cv-03779-WHA Document 334 Filed 08/05/05 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

not condone Multilyte’s stubborn adherence to its hope that claim construction would be

reconsidered again and a broader definition adopted before appellate review, there is no clear

and convincing evidence of bad faith. Multilyte’s arguments, while ultimately unsuccessful,

were not frivolous or asserted for an improper purpose. Likewise, none of the alleged examples

of “bait-and-switch” tactics or discovery abuses, (an extensive laundry list which need not be

addressed individually), render this case exceptional. 

* * *

Even if this case were exceptional, the Court would not exercise its discretion to award

attorney’s fees here. To be sure, it appears that both sides have aggressively fought nearly

every issue, (including disputes as trivial as which side should present first at the Markman

hearing and whether documents should be delivered by U.S. Postal Service or Federal Express),

which is perhaps somewhat atypical, even of high-stakes patent litigation. But the mere fact

that this action was particularly contentious does not justify an award of attorney’s fees.

The act that comes closest to being sanctionable was counsel’s misstatement at the

Markman hearing. Yet, Affymetrix has not presented clear and convincing evidence that this

was an intentional misrepresentation, rather than an inadvertent mistake. Regardless, this order

declines to award attorney’s fees in the requested amount of $3,071,264.25 solely on this basis.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees is DENIED, without

prejudice to either party raising this issue again if the action is remanded by the Federal Circuit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 5, 2005 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-03779-WHA Document 334 Filed 08/05/05 Page 6 of 6