Opinion ID: 787299
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Infineon's Cross-Appeal for Attorney Fees

Text: 74 Infineon asserts that it should have been awarded its attorney fees, arguing that such fees were warranted under both Rule 11 and 35 U.S.C. § 285. According to Infineon, the district court did not address its request for sanctions under Rule 11 or make findings of fact as to the exceptionality of the case. As PMT points out, however, the district court chastised all of the parties to the litigation for inappropriate behavior during the proceedings, stating that looking back at the parties' overall conduct, it sometimes seemed that they thought themselves to be in a totally different universe, a Wonderland where up was down and down was up and none of the normal rules applied. Power Mosfet Techs. v. Siemens AG, No 2:99-CV-168, at 3 (Sept. 30, 2002) (order denying motions for sanctions). The court further explained that, although all of the parties had engaged in questionable behavior, none of the misconduct [rose] to a level that would warrant significant sanctions to be awarded against any party, especially as such an award would tend to reward other wrongdoers in this case. Id. The court warned the parties that it would not be so lenient in future litigation in which they were involved. 75 While the language the district court used in denying sanctions is general in nature and does not specifically address Infineon's sanction motion, its tone makes its message perfectly clear: it was not awarding sanctions because all of the parties had conducted themselves without the decorum required when practicing before a federal court. The district court acknowledged the withholding of documents and other discovery abuses, as well as a variety of misconduct during the litigation, and credited each of the parties with some share of the bad behavior. In the face of the district court's warning to all of the parties, Infineon is quite bold to now assert that the district court abused its discretion in denying sanctions and fees. 76 We need not address the facts underlying Infineon's Rule 11 or section 285 motions, however, as we conclude that the district court's finding of widespread misconduct among all of the parties, Infineon included, is a more than adequate justification for an exercise of discretion denying sanctions. Cf. View Eng'g, Inc. v. Robotic Vision Sys., 208 F.3d 981, 986 (Fed.Cir.2000) (explaining that, under an identical standard in the 9th Circuit, a plaintiff's failure to investigate its charges of infringement prior to suit should ordinarily result in the district court expressing its broad discretion in favor of Rule 11 sanctions, at least in the absence of a sound excuse or considerable mitigating circumstances.  (emphasis added)); Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d 816, 831 (Fed.Cir.1992) (When the attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 are awarded solely on the basis of litigation misconduct, the amount of the award must bear some relation to the extent of the misconduct.). View Engineering and Read reflect the principle that an award of sanctions under Rule 11 and attorney fees under section 285 should be tailored by a court to the situation before it. A party subjected to behavior warranting an award of sanctions or fees might justifiably be denied those fees in a district court's discretion for the behavior to which it subjected others. Having found exactly those circumstances here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award Infineon its fees. 77