Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06181/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06181-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Apple Inc.
Defendant
Yanbin Yu
Plaintiff
Zhongxuan Zhang
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YANBIN YU, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

APPLE INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:18-cv-06181-JD 

ORDER RE ATTORNEY'S FEES

Re: Dkt. No. 81

Plaintiffs Yanbin Yu and Zhongxuan Zhang (“Yu”) alleged that Apple cell phones with 

dual-lens cameras infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,611,289 (“’289 patent”). They filed a virtually 

identical suit against Samsung regarding its devices. See Dkt. No. 61 in Yu v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 

Case No. 18-cv-06339-JD (N.D. Cal.). The Court dismissed Yu’s original complaints because the 

’289 patent was directed to unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and Alice Corp. 

Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Yu v. Apple Inc. (Yu I), 392 F. Supp. 3d 

1096, 1108 (N.D. Cal. 2019). Yu was granted leave to amend. Id. The amended complaints were

dismissed with prejudice, and judgment was entered against plaintiffs. Yu v. Apple Inc. (Yu II), 

___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2020 WL 1429773, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020); Dkt. No. 78; Dkt. 

No. 76 in Case No. 18-cv-06339-JD.

Apple then filed a motion for attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Dkt. No. 81. 

Samsung is not seeking fees. The Court finds Apple’s motion suitable for decision without oral 

argument pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-1(b) and vacates the hearing set for May 14, 2020. The motion 

is denied. 

Background about the patent and patentable subject matter are provided in the Court’s 

dismissal orders. The parties’ familiarity with the record is assumed.

Case 3:18-cv-06181-JD Document 86 Filed 05/12/20 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Section 285 of the Patent Act provides that the “court in exceptional cases may award 

reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” 35 U.S.C. § 285. The Court set out the 

standards that govern Section 285 fee awards in In re Protegrity Corp., Case No. 15-md-02600-

JD, 2017 WL 747329 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2017). “The district court determines whether an action 

qualifies as exceptional in light of the totality of the circumstances in each case. Relevant factors 

include, but are not limited to, ‘frivolousness, motivation, objective unreasonableness (both in the 

factual and legal components of the case) and the need in particular circumstances to advance 

considerations of compensation and deterrence.’ A preponderance of the evidence standard 

applies, and the disposition of the fee request is entrusted to the district court’s sound discretion.” 

Id. at *2 (quoting Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545, 554 n.6 

(2016)) (other citations omitted). Fee shifting is warranted only where “the totality of the 

circumstances . . . show[s] that a case was egregious on the merits or in the way it was handled, or 

in some combination of the two.” Id.

In re Protegrity emphasized two other important points. First, fee “shifting is not imposed 

as a penalty just for losing a patent infringement case. . . . The determinative test is ‘the 

substantive strength of a party’s litigating position’ and specifically whether it was ‘so merit-less 

as to “stand out” from the norm and, thus, be exceptional.’” Id. at *3 (citing SFA Systems, LLC v. 

Newegg, Inc., 793 F.3d 1344, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Octane Fitness, 572 U.S. at 554)

(emphasis in SFA Systems)). Second, “the facts that brand a case as exceptional should be fairly 

visible in the record. . . . A fee motion should not force the court to painfully reconstruct the 

minutiae of old arguments or spend days poring over masses of conflicting declarations, 

transcripts and other evidence.” Id.

Apple has not shown that exceptional circumstances are present here. It seeks fees 

incurred only in moving to dismiss Yu’s amended complaint. Dkt. No. 81 at 1. By taking that 

position, it effectively concedes that the claim Apple products infringed the ’289 patent was not 

exceptional when this case was filed. Nothing in the first dismissal order changes that analysis. 

The Court found that amendment would not “necessarily be futile, and so plaintiffs may file 

amended complaints.” Yu I, 392 F. Supp. 3d at 1108. This is precisely what Yu did. A patent is 

Case 3:18-cv-06181-JD Document 86 Filed 05/12/20 Page 2 of 3
3

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

presumed to be valid, and the burden was on Apple to prove invalidity by clear and convincing 

evidence. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 564 U.S. 91, 95 (2011). Neither the substantive 

strength or manner in which Yu litigated this case requiring Apple to meet that burden was 

unreasonable or exceptional. 

The cases that Apple cites do not disturb this conclusion. For example, in MarcTec, LLC 

v. Johnson & Johnson, 664 F.3d 907 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the plaintiff engaged in litigation 

misconduct by misrepresenting the law of claim construction and relying on expert testimony that 

failed to meet minimal standards of reliability. Id. at 919-20. The Federal Circuit affirmed the 

award of fees under Section 285 because the case was extended under those circumstances, which 

are not present here. Id. at 920-21.

Apple’s suggestion that fees are justified because Yu is a non-practicing entity is also 

unavailing. Even assuming this characterization is accurate, which is not clear, non-practicing 

entities certainly are allowed to pursue infringement claims and lose cases without automatically 

paying a defendant’s legal bills. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2020

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-06181-JD Document 86 Filed 05/12/20 Page 3 of 3