Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01252/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01252-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cavendish Square Holding B.V.
Appellee
TNS Media Research, LLC
Appellee
TiVo Research and Analytics, Inc.
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

TNS MEDIA RESEARCH, LLC, dba Kantar Media 

Audiences, CAVENDISH SQUARE HOLDING B.V.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees

v.

TIVO RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________ 

2015-1252

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York in No. 1:11-cv-04039-SAS, 

Judge Shira Ann Scheindlin.

______________________ 

Decided: September 16, 2015 

______________________ 

MICHAEL A. ALBERT, Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C., 

Boston, MA, for plaintiffs-appellees. Also represented by 

JOHN STRAND, ERIC J. RUTT, CHARLES T. STEENBURG.

PERRY M. GOLDBERG, Progress LLP, Los Angeles, CA, 

for defendant-appellant. 

______________________ 

Case: 15-1252 Document: 47-2 Page: 1 Filed: 09/16/2015
2 TNS MEDIA RESEARCH, LLC v. TIVO RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS

Before NEWMAN, CLEVENGER, and O’MALLEY, Circuit 

Judges.

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.

Tivo Research and Analytics, Inc. dba TRA, Inc. 

(“TRA”) appeals from the final judgment of the United 

States District Court for the Southern District of New 

York awarding attorneys’ fees to TNS Media Research, 

LLC dba Kantar Media Audiences and Cavendish Square 

Holding B.V. (collectively, “Kantar”). TNS Media Research, LLC v. TiVo Research & Analytics, Inc., No. 11-cv4039, 2014 WL 5639930 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2014) (“Attorneys’ Fee Decision”). For the reasons explained below, we 

vacate the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees as 

premature. 

Kantar filed suit against TRA seeking declaratory 

judgment that it did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 

7,729,940 (“the ’940 Patent”), which is assigned to TRA. 

TRA counterclaimed, asserting: (1) infringement of the 

’940 Patent; (2) misappropriation of trade secrets; 

(3) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty; and 

(4) breach of contract. TRA later amended its counterclaims to include allegations of infringement of two additional patents. Kantar moved for summary judgment on 

TRA’s patent infringement and trade secret claims, and 

for no damages on TRA’s non-patent counterclaims. The 

district court granted Kantar’s motion “as to noninfringement, trade secrets, and non-patent damages.” 

TNS Media Research, LLC v. TRA Global, Inc., 984 F. 

Supp. 2d 205, 208 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). 

On July 2, 2014, the parties stipulated to nominal 

damages of $1 for TRA’s breach of contract and fiduciary 

duty claims, and expressly reserved the right to appeal 

therefrom. The parties then stipulated to the entry of 

final judgment. TRA appealed that judgment to this 

court, and the appeal was docketed as TNS Media ReCase: 15-1252 Document: 47-2 Page: 2 Filed: 09/16/2015
TNS MEDIA RESEARCH, LLC v. TIVO RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS 3

search, LLC v. TiVo Research & Analytics, Inc., No. 14-

1668 (“the Substantive Appeal”). 

After the district court entered the stipulated judgment, Kantar moved for attorneys’ fees pursuant to Rule 

54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 35 U.S.C. 

§ 285, and the court’s inherent powers. The district court 

granted Kantar’s motion. With respect to TRA’s patent 

claims, the court found that the “‘totality of the circumstances’ dictates that TRA acted in an ‘exceptional’ manner throughout this litigation.” Attorneys’ Fee Decision, 

2014 WL 5639930, at *8. The court concluded, therefore,

that Kantar was “entitled to its attorneys’ fees and costs” 

with respect to TRA’s patent claims under § 285. Id. The 

court further found that TRA’s remaining “five trade 

secret claims lacked any colorable basis and were brought 

in bad faith, thus satisfying the standard for an award of 

attorneys’ fees under the Court’s inherent power.” Id. at

*12. The district court directed Kantar to submit a detailed request for fees and expenses recoverable pursuant 

to that order. The parties thereafter stipulated to the 

amount of fees at issue, and TRA now appeals from the 

district court’s final decision granting Kantar’s motion for 

attorneys’ fees. 

In the Substantive Appeal—decided in a separate 

opinion issued contemporaneously herewith—we affirmed 

in part, but: (1) reversed the district court’s ruling that 

TRA’s financial projections and strategic plans are not 

protectable as a matter of law; (2) reversed the district 

court’s decision to dismiss certain of TRA’s trade secret 

claims; (3) reversed the district court’s determination that 

TRA was entitled only to nominal damages on its nonpatent claims; (4) reversed the district court’s conclusion 

that TRA is not entitled to injunctive relief on its fiduciary duty claims as a matter of law; and (5) vacated the 

district court’s decision that certain of Kantar’s products 

do not infringe the asserted patent claims. Although we 

agreed with some of the district court’s rulings, we conCase: 15-1252 Document: 47-2 Page: 3 Filed: 09/16/2015
4 TNS MEDIA RESEARCH, LLC v. TIVO RESEARCH AND ANALYTICS

cluded that TRA is entitled to a jury trial on at least a 

subset of its claims. 

A decision awarding attorney fees to a prevailing party must be vacated when the underlying decision as to 

which that party prevailed is reversed. See Baker Oil 

Tools, Inc. v. Geo Vann, Inc., 828 F.2d 1558, 1566 (Fed. 

Cir. 1987) (“In view of our reversal of the grant of summary judgment on these issues, the [attorney fee] award 

premised thereon is vacated.”). Because we are reversingin-part and vacating-in-part the underlying merits decision in the Substantive Appeal, we vacate the district 

court’s decision awarding attorneys’ fees as premature. 

We need not address the parties’ additional arguments in this appeal, and we express no opinion on the 

merits of the issues presented therein. In light of this 

decision, this appeal is removed from the court’s October 

argument calendar. 

VACATED

COSTS

Each party shall bear its own costs. 

Case: 15-1252 Document: 47-2 Page: 4 Filed: 09/16/2015