Opinion ID: 777408
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Yahoo!'s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs and Motion to Strike

Text: 41 Yahoo! argues that Fantasy's actions both before and after it filed its complaint demonstrate that it failed to conduct a reasonable pre-filing investigation before commencing this suit. Fantasy responds that its February 4, 2000, letter demonstrates that it performed an adequate pre-filing investigation. Fantasy also argues that its proposed claim construction, under which all of the defendants literally infringe, was reasonable. 42 We conclude that the district court properly denied Yahoo!'s motion for attorney fees and costs. Yahoo! has failed to demonstrate that Fantasy's proposed construction of the bonus points limitation as including additional points for distance scoring and total yardage was unreasonable. Furthermore, Fantasy's February 4, 2000, letter demonstrates that it performed a reasonable investigation of Yahoo!'s fantasy football product before filing the complaint that initiated the current proceeding. The district court therefore did not clearly err in determining that Yahoo! failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that this was an exceptional case, and further did not abuse its discretion in refusing to award attorney fees and costs. 43 Finally, because the January 15, 1999, letter that is the subject of Yahoo!'s motion to strike is not necessary to our decision regarding Yahoo!'s motion for attorney fees and costs, we deny that motion as moot.