Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03378/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03378-69/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INFORMATICA CORPORATION

Plaintiff, No. C 02-03378 EDL

v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND

ORDERING PARTIES TO MEET AND

CONFER REGARDING PREJUDGMENT

INTEREST 

BUSINESS OBJECTS DATA

INTEGRATION, INC.

Defendant.

___________________________________/

On November 13, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §

285, arguing that this is an exceptional case warranting a fee award. Plaintiff’s motion also seeks

prejudgment interest. The motion has been fully briefed. Because this matter is appropriate for

decision without oral argument, the December 18, 2007 hearing is vacated. 

The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees under § 285, which

permits an award of attorneys’ fees in “exceptional cases.” See May 16, 2007 Order at 12-13

(“Here, consulting the Read factors for enhancement, as articulated in Section II, supra, the Court

declines to find that this case qualifies as an ‘exceptional case.’ In particular, the closeness of the

evidence of willfulness and BODI’s assertion of substantial invalidity defenses negate the

conclusion that this case is exceptional.”). As explained in the Court’s May 16, 2007 Order, to

award fees under § 285, the Court must first determine that a case is “exceptional,” and then it may

exercise its discretion to award fees to the prevailing party. See S.C. Johnson & Sons v.

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 740 Filed 12/06/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Carter-Wallace, Inc., 781 F.2d 198, 201 (Fed.Cir.1986); see also Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB

Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“The purpose of § 285 when applied to

accused infringers is generally said to be two-fold: one, it discourages infringement by penalizing

the infringer; and two, it prevents “gross injustice” when the accused infringer has litigated in bad

faith.”). 

Plaintiff’s current motion for fees offers no adequate new basis on which to reverse the

Court’s prior determination that this is not an exceptional case warranting a fee award. To the

contrary, developments since the May 16, 2007 Order reinforce the Court’s original ruling. After

the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir.

2007), which significantly raised the threshold for finding willful infringement, the Court declined to

enhance damages. See Oct. 29, 2007 Order at 7-8 (“Considering the totality of the circumstances in

light of Seagate, which significantly raised the bar for a finding of willfulness, the Court now

declines to award any enhancement in this case. . . . Under the Seagate standard, the issue of

willfulness becomes even closer; had the Seagate standard been used in this case, Plaintiff might

well have lost on willfulness.”). Plaintiff argues that the denial of enhanced damages supports a fee

award in the alternative in order to deter infringers from disregarding the patent rights of others. 

However, the Court’s conclusion that under Seagate this case presented a very close case of

willfulness also weighs against an award of attorneys’ fees. See Beckman Instruments, 892 F.2d at

1552 ( “Among the types of conduct which can form a basis for finding a case exceptional are

willful infringement, inequitable conduct before the P.T.O., misconduct during litigation, vexatious

or unjustified litigation, and frivolous suit.”). In addition, Plaintiff accepted the Court’s calculation

of a remittitur that represented the high end of damages that a jury might have awarded. See Aug.

16, 2007 Order at 6-7; cf. Riles v. Shell Exploration and Production Co., 298 F.3d 1302, 1314

(Fed.Cir. 2002) (affirming denial of enhanced damages in part because the jury could have awarded

substantially less damages). 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in the Court’s May 16, 2007 Order, Plaintiff’s

motion for attorneys’ fees is denied. The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s request for

prejudgment interest. See May 16, 2007 Order at 13-14. The parties are ordered to meet and confer

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 740 Filed 12/06/07 Page 2 of 3
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

about the amount of prejudgment interest and propose a stipulation to the Court no later than

December 17, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2007 _____________________________ 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 740 Filed 12/06/07 Page 3 of 3