1

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

SCIENCE APPLICATIONS

INTERNATIONAL CORP.,

 

Plaintiff,

 v.

THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant,

 and

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

 Intervenor-Defendant,

 and

L3 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

 Third-Party Defendant.

No. 17-cv-00825 C

Filed Under Seal: July 26, 2021

Publication: August 11, 20211

ORDER

On April 21, 2021, this Court awarded Plaintiff the reasonable costs and expenses, 

including attorneys’ fees, associated with filing its Motion to Strike. April 21, 2021 Mem. and 

Order (ECF No. 172) at 21. The Court also ordered Plaintiff to submit a certified accounting of 

reasonable costs and expenses associated with filing its Motion to Strike, including actual invoices, 

with descriptions, discounted for any redundancies, and explanations regarding the reasonableness

1 This Order was filed under seal with instruction to the parties to propose appropriate redactions

in accordance with this Court’s Protective Order (ECF No. 34). On August 9, 2021, the parties 

filed a “Joint Notice of Proposed Public Version of Court’s Sealed Order (D.I. No. 189)” with 

proposed redactions. (ECF No. 193.) This public version of the Order incorporates the parties’

proposed redactions.
2 

of the requested hourly rates and how the Government’s untimely disclosure caused Plaintiff to 

incur extra costs. Id. at 22.

In its Accounting of Reasonable Costs and Expenses (ECF No. 176), SAIC seeks to recover 

$87,292.08 in fees for work performed by seven Cooley LLP employees: two partners, four 

associates, and one paralegal. Plaintiff’s Accounting (ECF No. 176) (Pl. Acct.) at 3; Declaration 

of DeAnna D. Allen (ECF No. 176-1) (Allen Decl.) ¶ 4. Plaintiff explains that the Government’s 

untimely disclosure of its indefiniteness defenses primarily impacted SAIC in four ways: 

(1) SAIC was forced to move to strike the Government’s indefiniteness theories

( ). 

(2) SAIC prepared for and attended the hearing regarding its motion to strike

( ). 

(3) Following the hearing, SAIC provided the Court with supplemental briefing in 

support of its motion to strike ( ). 

(4) When providing substantive responses to the Government’s indefiniteness 

theories, SAIC had to expend additional time and effort because those defenses 

were not timely disclosed ( ). 

Pl. Acct. at 2-4. 

However, Plaintiff is seeking costs and fees in association with only the first three 

categories and has not included at least in costs and fees incurred in connection with 

developing and disclosing definiteness theories resulting from the untimeliness of the 

Government’s disclosures.2

 Id. at 2. SAIC argues its requested attorneys’ fees are reasonable 

2 Specifically, Plaintiff is not seeking “(1) the increase in costs and fees associated with the 

preparation of Dr. Welch’s rebuttal expert report resulting from the untimely nature of the 

Government’s disclosure of its indefiniteness positions; (2) the increase in costs and fees 

associated with the preparation and attendance of expert depositions, resulting from the untimely 

nature of the Government’s indefiniteness positions; (3) fees from Cooley associates Jim Hughes 

and Stephen Scaife pertaining to the Motion to Strike; (4) fees deemed redundant and removed by 

SAIC; (5) co-counsel Troutman Pepper’s fees related to the [M]otion to [S]trike; (6) . . . a request 

for fees associated with preparation of this Accounting; and (7) all costs associated with 

preparation of the Motion to Strike, for the hearing regarding the Motion to Strike, and 

supplemental briefing related thereto. SAIC is further reduc[ed] the amount requested by [its]

Accounting by reducing the fees for the second round of briefing (i.e., supplemental briefing on 

the Court’s authority to award costs and fees) by 30%.” Allen Decl. ¶ 20. 

4 

Dawn 

Renee 

Roelofs

Paralegal

Subtotal after : SAIC: 

Subtotal after 30% discount: SAIC: 

Pl. Acct. Ex. 2 (ECF No. 176-3). 

Plaintiff supports its accounting with a sworn declaration by Ms. Allen and a copy of the 

relevant invoices and accounting records. Plaintiff also relies on (1) the American Intellectual 

Property Association’s (AIPLA’s) biannual survey published in 2019 pertaining to the year 2018

and (2) the National Law Journal Report from 2017 to corroborate the reasonableness of its rates. 

Pl. Acct. at 6-7. 

Appropriate fees are calculated using the lodestar method by multiplying the number of 

hours reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate. See Large Audience 

Display Sys., LLC v. Tennman Prods., LLC, 660 F. App’x 966, 972-73 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 

The Government does not contest the hours alleged and accepts the amount of time billed 

by Plaintiff. Defendant’s Response (ECF No. 178) (Def. Resp.) at 4. The Court also finds that 

the alleged hours billed appear to be reasonable. 

The only item in dispute is whether SAIC’s hourly rates for attorneys and its paralegal are 

reasonable. This Court has broad discretion in determining whether attorneys’ fees are reasonable. 

See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983) (“It remains for the district court to determine 

what fee is ‘reasonable.’”); Bywaters v. United States, 670 F.3d 1221, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Blum 

v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984). The fee applicant bears the burden of proving a reasonable 

hourly rate “in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of 

reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Blum, 465 U.S. at 895 n.11; see also 

Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2008). For purposes of 
5

this action, the rate should be based on the forum of the District of Columbia, one of the most 

expensive legal markets in the country.

“Although a court may look to other factors to determine a reasonable rate, a firm’s normal 

and customary rates are the best evidence that ‘the rate is comparable to the market rate.’”

Plaintiff’s Reply (ECF No. 184) (Pl. Reply) at 2 (citing Perfect 10, Inc. v. Giganews, Inc., No. 

cv-11-07098, 2015 WL 1746484, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2015); VR Optics, LLC v. Peloton 

Interactive, Inc., No. 16-cv-6392, 2021 WL 1198930, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2021)). “Where, 

as here, attorney and client have agreed on the time to be spent and the rates to be charged, the 

market has spoken and there is no reason for the court to reverse engineer the process.” Fla. Rock 

Indus., Inc. v. United States, 9 Cl. Ct. 285, 290 (1985).

Plaintiff provided a sworn declaration from Ms. Allen averring that the requested costs and 

fees are reasonable and are in line with the customary rates charged by Cooley LLP to its clients.

See generally Allen Decl. Moreover, Plaintiff has provided its actual bills. Allen Decl. ¶¶ 25-26; 

Allen Decl. Ex. 4 (ECF No. 176-5) at 11, 13, 16, 21-23, 30-35, 38-39, 43-46.3

 Plaintiff has taken 

a conservative approach when calculating costs and attorneys’ fees; it excluded all costs not 

directly related to the Motion to Strike, hearing, and supplemental briefing, and additionally 

reduced potentially duplicative entries. Pl. Acct. at 7-9; Allen Decl. ¶ 20. 

Defendant takes issue with the requested rates because they exceed those listed in the 

AIPLA economic survey data for similarly situated private intellectual property attorneys in 

Washington, D.C. Def. Resp. at 3-4. The Government argues that although Plaintiff is correct 

that intellectual property is a specialized area, the AIPLA itself reflects intellectual propertyspecific hourly rates and therefore already takes this into account. Id. at 4. 

3 These citations refer to the CM/ECF page numbers located in the heading of each page.


8

Government agreed to pay $21.9 billion in exchange for 120,000 IVAS HUD devices); Pl. Opening 

Claim Construction Brief (ECF No 90) at 5-6 (referencing “contract awards to BAE Systems and 

DRS Technologies for not to exceed values of $444.8 million and $367 million, respectively,” and 

“a May 16, 2018 contract award to L3 Technologies, Inc. worth up to nearly $400 million, and a 

November 20, 2018 other transaction agreement with Microsoft worth up to nearly $500 million”); 

see also Defendant’s Objections and Second Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff’s Second Set of 

Interrogatories (7-9) (ECF 179-2) (SEALED) at 17-29 (listing agreements, sums paid, and units 

purchased). Again, SAIC’s requested rates are supported by actual invoices demonstrating that 

these amounts are SAIC’s counsel’s normal and customary rates. For these same reasons, the 

Court also finds Ms. Roelofs’s hourly rate as a paralegal to be reasonable.

Lastly, Defendant’s reliance on FastShip to request a reduction of the fee award is 

inapposite. While the Court opted not to take the drastic action of striking Defendant’s defenses, 

Plaintiff prevailed on the merits of its Motion to Strike by successfully demonstrating the 

Government’s discovery violation. See April 21, 2021 Mem. and Order at 22.

Accordingly, consistent with this Court’s April 21, 2021 Memorandum and Order, this 

Court finds Plaintiff’s $87,292.08 in requested fees to be reasonable and so awards that amount to 

SAIC. The Government shall make payment to SAIC by September 8, 2021. If additional time is 

needed to comply with this Order, Defendant may request an extension.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Eleni M. Roumel 

ELENI M. ROUMEL

Judge