Court Opinion

ID: 4363463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-01-31 16:00:43.442571+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:48:56.532870
License: Public Domain

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

  United States Court of Appeals
      for the Federal Circuit
                ______________________

   IMPERIUM IP HOLDINGS (CAYMAN), LTD.,
              Plaintiff-Appellee

                           v.

 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG
   ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG
         SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
            Defendants-Appellants
           ______________________

                      2018-1923
                ______________________

   Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas in No. 4:14-cv-00371-ALM,
Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III.
                ______________________

              Decided: January 31, 2019
               ______________________

   ROY WILLIAM SIGLER, Fisch Sigler, LLP, Washington,
DC, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by
JEFFREY MATTHEW SALTMAN, JOHN T. BATTAGLIA,
MATTHEW R. BENNER, ALAN M. FISCH.

    DOUGLAS HALLWARD-DRIEMEIER, Ropes & Gray LLP,
Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellants. Also
represented by SAMUEL LAWRENCE BRENNER, COURTNEY
2    IMPERIUM IP HOLDINGS (CAYMAN) v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
                                                  CO., LTD.

M. COX, Boston, MA; JESSE J. JENNER, STEVEN PEPE,
KEVIN JOHN POST, New York, NY.
               ______________________

    Before DYK, O’MALLEY, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
TARANTO, Circuit Judge.
    Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman), Ltd. brought this
action in 2014 against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd,
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Semi-
conductor, Inc. (plus another Samsung entity that has
since merged into one of those just named), which we
refer to collectively as “Samsung.” Imperium alleged
infringement of three Imperium-owned patents: U.S.
Patent Nos. 6,271,884; 7,092,029; and 6,836,290. The
district court eventually entered a judgment of liability
against Samsung based on a jury verdict. The court also
concluded that Imperium was entitled to attorney’s fees
as a prevailing party under 35 U.S.C. § 285, Imperium IP
Holdings (Cayman), Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 4:14-
CV-371, 2017 WL 4038883, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 13,
2017), and later calculated the amount of fees and award-
ed them, Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman), Ltd. v. Sam-
sung Elecs. Co., No. 4:14-CV-00371, 2018 WL 1602460
(E.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 2018). The present appeal is Samsung’s
appeal from the award of fees.
     We reverse that award. Under § 285, a party may not
be awarded fees unless it is “the prevailing party.” 35
U.S.C. § 285. The district court found the “prevailing
party” requirement met because “Imperium was success-
ful in proving [Samsung] infringed asserted claims in the
’884 and ’029 Patents.” Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman),
Ltd., No. 4:14-CV-371, 2017 WL 4038883, at *2. Today, in
a separate opinion, we reverse the judgment of liability
against Samsung and affirm the judgment of no liability
on the ’290 patent. Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman), Ltd.
v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Nos. 2017-2107, 2017-2133, slip op.
IMPERIUM IP HOLDINGS (CAYMAN) v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS   3
CO., LTD.

(Fed. Cir. Jan. 31, 2019). Accordingly, Imperium is no
longer the prevailing party, and we must reverse the
award of attorney’s fees at issue in this case.
                     REVERSED