Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01329/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01329-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

TECHNOLOGY LICENSING

CORPORATION, a California

corporation, and AV

TECHNOLOGIES LLC,

NO. CIV. S-03-1329 WBS PAN

Plaintiffs, 

v. AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 

RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

ATTORNEYS’ FEES

THOMSON, INC., a Delaware

corporation,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

The court entered judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 54(b), in favor of defendant Thomson, Inc. on

August 1, 2005. Defendant moves for attorneys’ fees in the

amount of $867,131.99 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. Defendant

also moves for expert fees, pursuant to the court’s inherent

power, in the amount of $100,000.

///

///

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 214 Filed 10/14/05 Page 1 of 5
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

I. Factual and Procedural History

Plaintiff Technology Licensing Corporation’s (“TLC”)

complaint alleged that defendant infringed four patents issued to

J. Carl Cooper. Cooper assigned his rights under those patents

to TLC. (Compl.) Defendant counterclaimed for a declaratory

judgment of non-infringement, invalidity of the four patents, and

unenforceability of the four patents. (Def.’s Answer &

Countercls.). The infringement claims regarding patents

5,486,869 (“the ‘869 patent”) and 5,754,250 (“the ‘250 patent”)

were severed and stayed by court order on September 20, 2004 due

to TLC’s applications for reissue of those patents. (See August

26, 2004 Maze Decl. ¶ 2). The claims regarding patents 4,573,070

(“the ‘070 patent”) and 5,459,524 (“the ‘524 patent”) were not

stayed. In May 2005, the court permitted plaintiff TLC to

substitute AV Technologies LLC (“AVT”), since the interest in the

‘070 patent was transferred from TLC to AVT in November 2004.

On June 30, 2005, the court issued an order holding

that plaintiffs could not recover damages for infringement of the

‘070 patent. (June 30, 2005 Order at 6, 12). The same order

also limited plaintiffs’ suit for infringement of the ‘524 patent

to two allegedly infringing products: the Thomson Grass Valley

8960 DEC, containing the TMC22x5y integrated circuit; and the

5000 family of integrated circuits. (Id. at 13). On July 22,

2005, the court granted summary judgment to defendant on

plaintiffs’ remaining claims for infringement of the ‘524 patent. 

After the summary judgment orders, trial was still

scheduled to begin on defendant’s counterclaims on August 16,

2005. (July 15, 2005 Final Pretrial Order at 7). Jury

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 214 Filed 10/14/05 Page 2 of 5
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

1 The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable

attorney fees to the prevailing party.

35 U.S.C. § 285.

3

instructions from plaintiffs were due August 6, 2005, and trial

briefs for both parties and defendant’s jury instructions were

due August 9, 2005. (Id. at 2-3). On July 26, 2005, almost

literally on the eve of trial, plaintiff TLC moved for entry of

judgment on the ‘524 and ‘070 patents. The court notices that

the next regular day on which the court was scheduled to hear

civil motions was August 8, 2005. Due to the rush necessitated

by the motion, the court was not predisposed to granting it.

However, on July 29, 2005, the parties jointly moved

for the entry of judgment on the ‘524 and ‘070 patents. On

August 1, 2005, the court acceded to the parties’ wishes and

entered judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiffs’ claims of

infringement of the ‘524 and ‘070 patents pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

Defendant filed the present motion for attorneys’ fees

and expert fees on August 15, 2005. Plaintiffs subsequently

filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit on the

infringement claims.

II. Discussion

Any ruling on attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 2851

would be more efficiently and accurately made after all the

claims in this case have been litigated. Plaintiffs’ claims of

infringement of the ‘250 patent and the ‘869 patent remain before

the court. Plaintiffs may or may not eventually prevail on those

claims.

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 214 Filed 10/14/05 Page 3 of 5
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

In Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB, the

jury found the plaintiff’s three apparatus claims to be invalid

and not infringed but also found that the plaintiff’s two method

claims were infringed by the defendant. 892 F.2d 1547, 1549

(Fed. Cir. 1989). The district court judge also entered a

permanent injunction against the defendant. Id. Subsequently,

the court found the case “exceptional” and held that all of

plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees were recoverable from the defendant. 

Id. at 1549-50. The Federal Circuit, in vacating the amount of

fees awarded, observed:

§ 285 provides only for attorney fees being paid to the

prevailing party. In the present case, Beckman accused LKB

of infringing five claims of the ‘401 patent; of these

claims, only two were found not to be invalid and to be

infringed. The other three claims were found invalid and

not infringed. Therefore, there is some question whether

Beckman can be considered altogether a “prevailing party”

for the purpose of § 285. Once again, we are given very

little assistance by the case law, since very few cases have

involved an award of attorney fees after a “split” jury

verdict. The commentators seem to suggest, however, that

the correct approach is either to deny fees entirely, or to

grant fees only to the extent that a party “prevailed.”

Id. at 1553; see also Consol. Aluminum Corp. v. Fonseco Int’l

Ltd., 910 F.2d 804, 814 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (upholding district

court’s finding that alleged infringer was not entitled to

exceptional case attorneys’ fees, even though patentee was found

to have engaged in inequitable conduct, since neither alleged

infringer nor patentee had prevailed on all issues at all stages

of the litigation).

Admittedly, Beckman is distinguishable. In the present

case, defendant was granted summary judgment on the claims of

infringement of the ‘524 and ‘070 patents and has not yet been

found to have infringed the ‘250 or ‘869 patents. However,

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 214 Filed 10/14/05 Page 4 of 5
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

Beckman provides persuasive support for the proposition that it

is prudent for the court to wait until all of plaintiff’s claims

are resolved before deciding whether this case is “exceptional.” 

Were plaintiffs to eventually succeed on their infringement

claims as to the ‘250 and ‘869 patents, Beckman teaches that the

court should reduce any attorneys’ fees award to defendants or

deny those fees altogether. Even were defendant to eventually

prevail on the ‘250 and ‘869 infringement claims, there may

emerge a better picture of any misconduct by plaintiffs so that

the ruling on attorneys’ fees would be more comprehensive. 

Efficiency dictates that the court delay ruling on the motion for

attorneys’ fees until all the infringement allegations have been

resolved.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion for

attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 be, and the same

hereby is, DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DATED: October 13, 2005

 

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 214 Filed 10/14/05 Page 5 of 5