Court Opinion

ID: 9375360
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-27 16:01:14.183169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:58.444665
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1388    Document: 35    Page: 1   Filed: 02/27/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

  YUNIOR DOMINGUEZ, SALT ADDICT, INC., DBA
             THE BALLYHOOP,
              Plaintiffs-Appellees

                            v.

  BARRACUDA TACKLE LLC, FLORIDA FISHING
 TACKLE MFG. CO., INC., DAVID BURTON YOUNG,
              Defendants-Appellants
             ______________________

                       2022-1388
                 ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Middle District of Florida in No. 8:20-cv-01538-KKM-AEP,
 Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle.
                   ______________________

                Decided: February 27, 2023
                 ______________________

     JORGE ESPINOSA, GrayRobinson, P.A., Miami, FL, for
 plaintiffs-appellees. Also represented by ERIC BRANDON
 FUGETT, Pitchford Fugett, PLLC, Nashville, TN.

     MARK CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, Johnson Dalal, Planta-
 tion, FL, for defendants-appellants. Also represented by
 VERONIKA BALBUZANOVA, ABDUL-SUMI DALAL.
                   ______________________
Case: 22-1388     Document: 35     Page: 2    Filed: 02/27/2023

 2                       DOMINGUEZ   v. BARRACUDA TACKLE LLC

  Before STOLL, SCHALL, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
 SCHALL, Circuit Judge.
     Barracuda Tackle LLC, Florida Fishing Tackle Manu-
 facturing Company, Inc., and David Burton Young (collec-
 tively, “Barracuda”) appeal the decision of the United
 States District Court for the Middle District of Florida that
 denied Barracuda attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
 Dominguez v. Barracuda Tackle LLC, No 8:20-cv-1538-
 KKM-AEP, 2021 WL 5998127 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 20, 2021).
 For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
     Yunior Dominguez and Salt Addict, Inc. d/b/a The Bal-
 lyhoop (collectively “Ballyhoop”) filed a complaint against
 Barracuda for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,165,764
 (“the ’764 patent”) in the United States District Court for
 the Southern District of Florida. The ’764 patent is di-
 rected to a collapsible fishing bait net, i.e., a net that can
 be used to capture small fish that can be used as bait to
 catch larger fish. ’764 Patent col. 1 ll. 12–42. Ballyhoop
 alleged that Barracuda’s bait nets infringed claims 1 and 3
 of the ’764 patent directly or indirectly, either literally or
 under the doctrine of equivalents. 1
     Barracuda filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Bal-
 lyhoop had failed to state a claim and that the Southern
 District of Florida constituted an improper venue for the
 suit. Barracuda also filed a motion for claim construction,
 a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, and
 a motion seeking sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Pro-
 cedure 11 against Ballyhoop for bringing a purportedly
 frivolous claim. Ballyhoop responded only to the motion to

     1    Ballyhoop initially asserted infringement of claims
 1, 2, and 3 of the ’764 patent, but subsequently decided only
 to assert claims 1 and 3 of the patent. J.A. 10 n.2.
Case: 22-1388     Document: 35      Page: 3    Filed: 02/27/2023

 DOMINGUEZ   v. BARRACUDA TACKLE LLC                          3

 dismiss and to the motion for summary judgment. A little
 over a year after the suit was filed, the case was transferred
 to the United States District Court for the Middle District
 of Florida. Following the case’s transfer, the district court
 denied Barracuda’s motion to dismiss as moot in view of
 the parties’ agreement that the case could proceed on the
 pending motion for summary judgment. The court also de-
 nied a motion Ballyhoop had filed seeking to extend the
 discovery period because discovery had closed prior to the
 case’s transfer to the Middle District. Having received no
 response to Barracuda’s motion for claim construction, the
 court considered the motion unopposed and adopted Barra-
 cuda’s constructions.
      In due course, a magistrate judge considered Barra-
 cuda’s pending motions for summary judgment and for
 sanctions under Rule 11 and issued a Report and Recom-
 mendation. J.A. 202–36. With respect to summary judg-
 ment, the magistrate judge concluded that Barracuda’s
 bait nets do not literally infringe the ’764 patent because
 they do not satisfy several claim limitations and because
 Ballyhoop “effectively concede[d] that the Accused Product
 does not literally infringe.” J.A. 217–18 & n.7. 2 The mag-
 istrate judge also rejected Ballyhoop’s arguments that the
 missing claim limitations were satisfied under the doctrine
 of equivalents because “a reasonable juror could not find
 that each element of the Accused Product and the claimed
 collapsible bait net in the ’764 Patent perform substan-
 tially the same function in substantially the same way with
 substantially the same result or that the way in which they
 differ is insubstantial.” J.A. 233. The magistrate judge
 therefore recommended that Barracuda’s motion for sum-
 mary judgment be granted. J.A. 235.

     2   The magistrate judge determined that Barracuda’s
 bait nets do not include the claim elements: (1) “semicircu-
 lar tubular rods”; (2) a “pin-like insert”; and (3) “wax string
 that is wrapped around the tubular rod.” See J.A. 219–24.
Case: 22-1388     Document: 35     Page: 4    Filed: 02/27/2023

 4                       DOMINGUEZ   v. BARRACUDA TACKLE LLC

      With regard to Barracuda’s motion for sanctions, the
 magistrate judge determined that Ballyhoop’s suit was not
 frivolous and that Ballyhoop had demonstrated an effort to
 engage in a pre-suit investigation of its infringement claim.
 “Further,” the magistrate judge noted, “a reasonable juror
 could conclude that the Accused Product and the collapsi-
 ble bait net claimed in the ’764 Patent perform substan-
 tially the same function with substantially the same result
 but just not as to the way in which each achieves that re-
 sult, especially in light of the claims construction.” Id. Ac-
 cordingly, the magistrate judge recommended that
 Barracuda’s motion for sanctions be denied. Id.
     The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s Re-
 port and Recommendation in full, thereby granting Barra-
 cuda’s motion for summary judgment and denying
 Barracuda’s motion for sanctions. Dominguez v. Barra-
 cuda Tackle LLC, No 8:20-cv-1538-KKM-AEP, 2021 WL
 3857638 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2021).
      After judgment was entered in its favor, Barracuda
 filed a motion seeking an award of attorney fees under 35
 U.S.C. § 285. The magistrate judge issued a Report and
 Recommendation that Barracuda’s request be denied. J.A.
 9–21. In reaching this conclusion, the magistrate judge re-
 jected Barracuda’s argument that the case was exceptional
 because Ballyhoop’s infringement position was unreasona-
 ble, noting that, in the context of Barracuda’s motion for
 sanctions under Rule 11, the court had found Ballyhoop
 had maintained a nonfrivolous claim for patent infringe-
 ment and had demonstrated an effort to engage in pre-suit
 investigation of the claim. J.A. 14–16. The magistrate
 judge also considered and rejected Barracuda’s argument
 that the case was exceptional because Ballyhoop had en-
 gaged in litigation misconduct and because Ballyhoop had
 bad-faith motivation in bringing the suit. J.A. 16–18.
    The district court agreed with the magistrate judge and
 adopted the Report and Recommendation in full.
Case: 22-1388    Document: 35      Page: 5    Filed: 02/27/2023

 DOMINGUEZ   v. BARRACUDA TACKLE LLC                        5

 Dominguez, 2021 WL 5998127, at *2. 3 Barracuda appeals
 the court’s denial of attorney fees. We have jurisdiction
 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
                         DISCUSSION
                               I
     The Patent Act authorizes district courts to award at-
 torney fees to the prevailing party in “exceptional cases.”
 35 U.S.C. § 285. “[A]n ‘exceptional’ case is simply one that
 stands out from others with respect to the substantive
 strength of a party’s litigating position (considering both
 the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unrea-
 sonable manner in which the case was litigated.” Octane
 Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545,
 554 (2014). “[T]here is no precise rule or formula for mak-
 ing these determinations,” instead, district courts “may de-
 termine whether a case is ‘exceptional’ in the case-by-case
 exercise of their discretion, considering the totality of the
 circumstances.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation
 omitted).
     We review all aspects of a district court’s § 285 deter-
 mination for abuse of discretion. Highmark Inc. v. Allcare
 Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 572 U.S. 559, 564 (2014). “To meet
 the abuse-of-discretion standard, the moving party must
 show that the district court has made a clear error of judg-
 ment in weighing relevant factors or in basing its decision
 on an error of law or on clearly erroneous factual findings.”
 Bayer CropScience AG v. Dow AgroSciences LLC, 851 F.3d
 1302, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and
 citations omitted).

     3   Barracuda also sought, and was awarded, a taxa-
 tion of costs. Dominguez, 2021 WL 5998127, at *2. The
 issue of costs is not before us on appeal.
Case: 22-1388     Document: 35      Page: 6   Filed: 02/27/2023

 6                       DOMINGUEZ   v. BARRACUDA TACKLE LLC

                               II
      Barracuda makes two arguments on appeal. First,
 Barracuda argues that the district court abused its discre-
 tion because it did not weigh all the relevant factors under
 the totality-of-the-circumstances standard. That is, Barra-
 cuda contends that the court did not take into account the
 substantive weakness of Ballyhoop’s literal infringement
 contention. Appellant’s Br. 21–27. Barracuda also con-
 tends that the court’s exceptionality analysis did not take
 into consideration facts pertaining to: Ballyhoop’s untimely
 service of process to Barracuda; Ballyhoop’s failure to
 timely file Markman briefing; Ballyhoop’s failure to timely
 file responses to motions filed by Barracuda; and the denial
 of Ballyhoop’s motion for an extension of discovery. Appel-
 lant’s Br. 27–29.
      We are not persuaded that the district court failed to
 consider pertinent factors. Although the court did not ex-
 pressly address the strength of Ballyhoop’s literal infringe-
 ment claim in its decision, in its analysis under the totality
 of the circumstances the court did consider and agree with
 the magistrate judge’s conclusion that Ballyhoop’s litiga-
 tion position in general was not unreasonable. Dominguez,
 2021 WL 5998127, at *1; J.A. 14–16. We also cannot fault
 the court for discussing the specifics of the case with re-
 spect to Ballyhoop’s claim for infringement under the doc-
 trine of equivalents as part of that analysis. In the same
 vein, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion by
 failing to list each act of Ballyhoop’s alleged misconduct
 that it considered. And regardless, the court agreed with,
 and adopted, the magistrate judge’s analysis, which itself
 noted Ballyhoop’s failure to file responses to Barracuda’s
 motions and Markman briefing, as well as the court’s de-
 nial of Ballyhoop’s motion for an extension of discovery.
 Dominguez, 2021 WL 5998127, at *2; J.A. 10–11, 16–17.
     Barracuda’s second argument is that the district court
 abused its discretion because the court based its excep-
 tional-case ruling on a clearly erroneous assessment of the
Case: 22-1388     Document: 35      Page: 7   Filed: 02/27/2023

 DOMINGUEZ   v. BARRACUDA TACKLE LLC                         7

 evidence. Barracuda argues that the court improperly re-
 lied on its Rule 11 analysis and findings in support of its
 § 285 analysis. Appellant’s Br. 32–37. It is true that
 “[w]hether a party avoids or engages in sanctionable con-
 duct under Rule 11(b) ‘is not the appropriate benchmark’”
 in a § 285 analysis. Rothschild Connected Devices Innova-
 tions, LLC v. Guardian Prot. Servs., 858 F.3d 1383, 1390
 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Octane Fitness, 572 U.S. at 555).
 Here, the court considered facts it had previously consid-
 ered in its Rule 11 analysis and noted its prior conclusion
 regarding sanctions. Dominguez, 2021 WL 5998127, at *1.
 The court did not, however, use the Rule 11 standard as its
 “benchmark” for an award of fees. Instead, it properly con-
 sidered the totality of the circumstances. Barracuda also
 takes issue with what it contends was the court’s dispro-
 portionate reliance on Ballyhoop’s doctrine of equivalents
 argument. Appellant’s Br. 35–37. We cannot say that the
 court’s focus on Ballyhoop’s stronger argument, infringe-
 ment under the doctrine of equivalents, in determining
 whether Ballyhoop’s litigation position was unreasonable,
 constituted an error of judgment. We thus see no error of
 law or reliance on clearly erroneous fact findings in the dis-
 trict court’s decision.
    We have considered Barracuda’s remaining arguments
 and find them unpersuasive.
                         CONCLUSION
     For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the district
 court did not abuse its discretion in determining that, un-
 der the totality of the circumstances, this was not an excep-
 tional case. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial
 of attorney fees under § 285.
                         AFFIRMED
                            COSTS
No costs.