Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-05693/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-05693-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DATAMIZE LLC,

Plaintiff,

v

PLUMTREE SOFTWARE, INC,

Defendant. /

No C-02-5693 VRW

ORDER

By order dated July 9, 2004, the court granted

defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity. Doc #71. 

Because this invalidated the lone independent claim of the only

patent-in-suit, the order terminated this case. Id. Defendant has

submitted a bill of costs, which the clerk has taxed and of which

plaintiff now seeks review. Doc #90. Defendant has moved for an

award of attorney fees pursuant to the fee-shifting provision of

the patent statute, 35 USC § 285. For the reasons that follow, the

court DENIES plaintiff’s motion for review of the taxing of costs

and DENIES defendant’s motion for an award of attorney fees.

/

Case 3:02-cv-05693-VRW Document 108 Filed 05/23/05 Page 1 of 5
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

I

The court first takes up the matter of costs. FRCP

54(d)(1) directs that “costs other than attorneys’ fees shall be

allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court

otherwise directs.” The categories of taxable costs are enumerated

in 28 USC § 1920. Plaintiff’s objection to defendant’s bill of

costs concerns a charge of $10,326.58 for copying of documents in

response to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Pl Mot Review Costs

(Doc #90) at 2. 28 USC § 1920(4) provides that “fees for

exemplification and copies of papers necessarily obtained for use

in the case” are taxable. Civ L R 54-3(d)(1) interprets 28 USC §

1920(4) to mean that “[t]he cost of reproducing disclosure or

formal discovery documents when used for any purpose in the case is

allowable.”

Defendant’s successful motion for summary judgment was

predicated on a purely legal issue and required virtually no

discovered materials. Plaintiff objects that, as such, the

documents whose cost of reproduction defendant now seeks to tax

were not “necessarily obtained for use in the case” under 28 USC §

1920(4). Plaintiff further objects that the discovery in question

could have been avoided had defendant not delayed filing of its

motion for summary judgment of invalidity.

Neither of plaintiff’s arguments is well-taken. There is

no suggestion that reproduction of materials in response to

plaintiff’s request was unnecessary at the time; it is only in

hindsight that it was unnecessary. Disallowing those costs would

make defendant a victim of its own success. Plaintiff’s argument

that the discovery responses were unnecessary because they could

Case 3:02-cv-05693-VRW Document 108 Filed 05/23/05 Page 2 of 5
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

have been avoided had defendant moved for summary judgment sooner

begs the question: Defendant argues convincingly that its motion

for summary judgment of invalidity could not reasonably have been

made before defendant received plaintiff’s proposed construction of

the claim term (“aesthetically pleasing”) that was the subject of

defendant’s motion for summary judgment. See Def Opp (Doc #104) at

4. Defendant points out -- and plaintiff does not dispute in its

reply -- that the motion for summary judgment was filed promptly

after defendant received plaintiff’s proposed construction of

“aesthetically pleasing.”

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for review of the taxing

of costs (Doc #90) is DENIED and the clerk’s taxing of $15,310.13

is AFFIRMED.

II

Next, the court takes up the issue of attorney fees. 

Title 35 USC § 285 provides that “[t]he court in exceptional cases

may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” The

questions, of course, are what does “exceptional” mean, and is this

case exceptional. As one commentator has summarized:

Counsel fees are not to be allowed as a matter

of course and should not be allowed in the

ordinary, typical patent suit. The exercise of

discretion in favor of allowance should be

bottomed on a finding of unfairness or bad

faith in the conduct of the losing party or

some other equitable consideration of similar

force which makes it grossly unjust that the

winner of the lawsuit be left to bear the

burden of his own counsel fees.

Martin M Heit, Misconduct Related to Litigation as Rendering Patent

Case “Exceptional” for Purposes of 35 USCA § 285, 64 ALR Fed 175 §

Case 3:02-cv-05693-VRW Document 108 Filed 05/23/05 Page 3 of 5
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

2[a] (2004) (footnotes omitted). Likewise, the Federal Circuit has

stated:

The prevailing party may prove the existence of

an exceptional case by showing: inequitable

conduct before the PTO; litigation misconduct;

vexatious, unjustified, and otherwise bad faith

litigation; a frivolous suit or willful

infringement.

Epcon Gas Systems, Inc v Bauer Compressors, Inc, 279 F3d 10222,

1034 (Fed Cir 2002).

This case does not present willful infringement (the

patentee lost), nor does it involve inequitable conduct before the

PTO (the patent was held invalid) -- two of the most common

circumstances giving rise to a fee award under § 285. The only

tenable ground for a fee award here is frivolous, vexatious bad

faith litigation. “‘An exceptional case must be established by

clear and convincing evidence.’” Advance Transformer Co v

Levinson, 837 F2d 1081, 1085 (Fed Cir 1988) (quoting Reactive

Metals & Alloys Corp v ESM Inc, 769 F2d 1578, 1582 (Fed Cir 1985),

overruled on other grounds, Cardinal Chemical Co v Morton

International, Inc, 508 US 83 (1993).

Plaintiff’s litigation position regarding the patent’s

validity was not well supported in the law -- indeed, that is

precisely why the court ruled against it. But by the same token,

plaintiff’s position was not essentially frivolous. And while

defendant has filled many pages to insinuate that plaintiff

triggered this litigation in bad faith, none of it is sufficient

for the court to find by clear and convincing evidence that bad

faith was involved. On the facts before the court, defendant

cannot carry its burden. Accordingly, defendant’s motion for

Case 3:02-cv-05693-VRW Document 108 Filed 05/23/05 Page 4 of 5
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

attorney’s fees is DENIED.

III

Finally, the court takes up certain administrative

matters. Plaintiff’s motion to continue the hearing on defendant’s

motion for attorney fees (Doc #91) is administratively TERMINATED. 

Defendant’s motion to seal (Doc #100) its reply brief in support of

its motion for attorney fees (Doc #98, redacted public version) is

GRANTED.

For the reasons given above, defendant’s motion for

attorney fees (Doc #76) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion for review

of the taxing of costs (Doc #90) is DENIED and the clerk’s taxing

of costs in the amount of $15,310.13 is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:02-cv-05693-VRW Document 108 Filed 05/23/05 Page 5 of 5