Linex Fee Order

8/21/2019 Linex Fee Order

1/13

UnitedStatesDistrictCourt

FortheNo

rthernDistrictofCalifornia

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I N THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DI STRI CT OF CALI FORNI A

LI NEX TECHNOLOGI ES, I NC. ,

Pl ai nt i f f ,

v.

HEWLETT- PACKARD COMPANY; APPLECOMPUTER I NC. ; ARUBA NETWORKS,I NC. ; MERU NETWORKS, I NC. ; andRUCKUS WI RELESS, I NC. ,

Def endant s.

________________________________/

No. C 13- 159 CWORDER REGARDI NGBRI EFI NG SCHEDULEFOR MOTI ONS FORATTORNEYS FEES

( Docket No. 345,346)

On May 20, 2014, t he Cour t ent ered j udgment i n f avor of

Def endant s HP, Appl e, Ar uba, Meru, and Ruckus and agai nst

Pl ai nt i f f Li nex. Docket No. 334. On J une 10, 2014, Ar uba, Mer u,

and Ruckus ( col l ect i vel y, t he access poi nt or AP manuf act ur er s)

f i l ed a mot i on seeki ng an awar d under 35 U. S. C. 285 of al l of

t hei r at t or neys f ees. Docket No. 345. HP and Appl e f i l ed a

si mi l ar mot i on, but sought onl y at t or neys f ees associ at ed wi t h

t he asser t ed cl ai ms t hat t he Cour t f ound t o be val i d but not

i nf r i nged. Docket No. 346. Li nex opposes both mot i ons and argues

i n t he al t er nat i ve t hat t he i ssue of at t or neys f ees shoul d be

def er r ed unt i l t he Feder al Ci r cui t deci des t he appeal of t he

Cour t s or der . On J ul y 31, 2014, t he Cour t hel d a hear i ng. Based

on the papers and argument s of counsel , t he Cour t GRANTS HP and

Appl e s mot i on and GRANTS t he AP manuf act ur ers mot i on i n par t .

/ /

/ /

Case4:13-cv-00159-CW Document413 Filed09/15/14 Page1 of 13


2/13

Unite

dStatesDistrictCourt

FortheNo


2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BACKGROUND

I n J une 2007, Li nex f i l ed sui t i n t he East er n Di st r i ct of

Texas, asser t i ng i nf r i ngement of U. S. Pat ent No. 6, 757, 322 ( t he

322 pat ent ) agai nst f i f t een ent i t i es t hat wer e not sued her e.

Li nex Techs. , I nc. v. Bel ki n I nt l , Case No. 2: 07- cv- 00222 J DL

( E. D. Tex. J une 1, 2007) ( t he Texas case) . I n t he Texas case,

Li nex based i t s i nf r i ngement cl ai ms on t he same 802. 11n st andard

i nvoked here. 1 The Texas cour t i ssued a cl ai m const r uct i on or der ,

const r ui ng spr ead spect r um si gnal s as si gnal s pr ocessed wi t h

one or mor e codes t hat di st r i but es each si gnal acr oss t he

avai l abl e bandwi dt h. Docket No. 235- 16 at 22. Shor t l y

t her eaf t er , Li nex set t l ed i t s cl ai ms wi t h each of t he def endant s

f or l ump sum payment s.

Af t er t he Texas r ul i ng, Li nex went back to t he Uni t ed St at es

Pat ent and Trademark Of f i ce ( USPTO) t o seek r ei ssues of some of

t he cont i nuat i on patent s of t he 322 patent . The USPTO can

r ei ssue a patent i n accordance wi t h an amended appl i cat i on when a

pat ent was er r oneousl y deemed whol l y or par t l y i noper at i ve or

i nval i d, or because a patent ee cl ai med more or l ess t han he had a

r i ght t o cl ai m i n t he pat ent . 35 U. S. C. 251. No new subj ect

mat t er may be i nt r oduced i n t he r ei ssue appl i cat i on. I d. I n J une

1 The Wi - Al l i ance i nt r oduced t he 802. 11n Wi Fi cer t i f i cat i on

i n 2007. Br at i c Report 53. The st andard was f ormal l y adopt edi n 2009. I d.



3/13

Unite


FortheNo


3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2008, 2 Li nex f i l ed an appl i cat i on f or RE 42, 219 ( t he 219 pat ent ) ,

a rei ssue pat ent f or Mul t i pl e- i nput and mul t i pl e- ouput ( MI MO)

spread spect r um syst emand method. The 219 patent was i ssued i n

Mar ch 2011. Al so i n Mar ch 2011, Li nex f i l ed an appl i cat i on f or

RE 43, 812 ( t he 812 pat ent ) , whi ch had t he same t i t l e as t he 219

pat ent and cover ed si mi l ar subj ect mat t er . The 812 patent i ssued

i n November 2012.

I n May 2011, Li nex f i l ed a pet i t i on at t he I nt er nat i onal

Tr ade Commi ssi on ( I TC) r equest i ng r el i ef f or Def endant s

i nf r i ngement of t he 322 and 219 pat ent s ( t he I TC I nvest i gat i on) .

The I TC can i ssue an excl usi on or der hal t i ng i mpor t s and expor t s

of an i nf r i ngi ng pr oduct , but cannot award compensat ory damages.

At ar ound t he same t i me, Li nex f i l ed t hi s pat ent i nf r i ngement case

agai nst Def endant s i n Del aware, seeki ng compensat ory damages. The

par t i es agr eed t o st ay t he l i t i gat i on pendi ng r esol ut i on of t he

I TC I nvest i gat i on.

Dur i ng t he I TC I nvest i gat i on, t he st af f at t or ney i ssued an

opi ni on on cl ai m const r uct i on, val i di t y, i nf r i ngement , and

2 Def endant s poi nt out t hat t hei r pr oduct s wer e on sal e as of

2006. Br at i c Repor t 40. The Wi - Al l i ance i nt r oduced t he 802. 11nst andar d i n 2007 and i t was f or mal l y adopt ed i n 2009. I d. 53.By cont r ast , t he 219 patent and 812 patent were i ssued i n 2008and 2011.



4/13

Unite


FortheNo


4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

domest i c i ndust r y r egar di ng t he 322 and 219 pat ent s. 3 The st af f

at t or ney f ound that spread spect r um si gnal s shoul d be const r ued

t o mean s i gnal s cor r espondi ng t o dat a whi ch has been processed

wi t h one or mor e codes t hat di st r i but es each si gnal acr oss a

bandwi dt h gr eat er t han t he bandwi dt h r equi r ed t o car r y t he dat a.

Docket No. 375, Ex. A at 17. I n ot her wor ds, l i ke t hi s Cour t di d

l at er , t he st af f at t or ney f ound t hat spr ead spect r um si gnal s

r esul t ed f r om t he pr ocessi ng of dat a wi t h codes t o i ncr ease the

bandwi dt h of t he dat a si gnal . The st af f at t or ney accor di ngl y

opi ned t hat he di d not expect t he evi dence to show i nf r i ngement

of t he asser t ed cl ai ms of t he 322 and 219 pat ent s. I d. at 32.

The st af f at t or ney al so det er mi ned t hat t her e was no domest i c

i ndust r y. Two busi ness days af t er t he st af f at t or ney s opi ni on

was publ i shed, Li nex vol unt ar i l y di smi ssed t he I TC act i on.

Upon t he par t i es st i pul at i on, t he Del awar e cour t l i f t ed t he

st ay. Docket No. 28. The case was event ual l y t r ansf er r ed t o t hi s

di st r i ct . Docket No. 96. Af t er t he 812 pat ent i ssued, Li nex

added i t t o t he sui t . Af t er a set t l ement conf er ence, Li nex

wi t hdr ew a number of asser t ed cl ai ms, i ncl udi ng al l cl ai ms of t he

322 patent . See Docket No. 327.

3 The st af f at t orney s posi t i on may or may not be adopt ed by

t he ALJ i n hi s or her i ni t i al det er mi nat i on. The i ni t i aldetermi nat i on woul d t hen be r evi ewed by t he I TC Commi ss i on. I TCdeci si ons ar e not necessar i l y bi ndi ng on t he di st r i ct cour t .Texas I nst r uments I nc. v. U. S. I nt l Tr ade Comm n, 851 F. 2d 342,343 ( Fed. Ci r . 1988) .



5/13

Unite


FortheNo


5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On May 20, 2014, t he Cour t const r ued t he di sput ed cl ai m t erms

and ent ered summary j udgment i n f avor of Def endants and agai nst

Li nex. The di sput ed cl ai m t er ms coul d be gr ouped i nt o f our

gener al cat egor i es: ( a) spr ead spect r um si gnal s, ( b) codes,

( c) combi ni ng t er ms, and ( d) separ at i ng t er ms. Docket No. 333

( MSJ Or der ) , 5. The Cour t adopt ed const r uct i ons si mi l ar t o

Li nex s proposal s f or codes, t he combi ni ng t er ms, and t he

separ at i ng t erms, but adopt ed Def endant s pr oposed const r uct i on

f or spr ead spect r um si gnal s. I d. at 6, 11, 15, 19. Regar di ng

t he asser t ed cl ai ms cont ai ni ng t he t er m spr ead spect r um si gnal s

- cl ai ms 121 and 131- 132 of t he 219 patent and cl ai ms 101- 102 of

t he 812 pat ent - t he Cour t f ound t he cl ai ms t o be val i d as

di st i nct f r om t he pr i or ar t , but not i nf r i nged by Def endant s

accused or t hogonal f r equency di vi si on mul t i pl exi ng ( OFDM)

pr oduct s. I d. at 29- 33. As f or t he r emai ni ng asser t ed cl ai ms not

cont ai ni ng spr ead spect r um si gnal s but r ef er r i ng gener al l y t o

codes and si gnal s - cl ai ms 97 and 107- 108 of t he 219 pat ent

and cl ai ms 97- 98 of t he 812 pat ent - t he Cour t f ound t hat t hese

cl ai ms l acked t he spr ead spect r um l i mi t at i on di st i ngui shi ng t hem

f r om t he pr i or ar t , and so t hese cl ai ms wer e i nval i d. I d. at 35.

The Cour t t her ef or e ent er ed j udgment i n f avor of Def endant s on al l

asser t ed cl ai ms.

Def endant s now seek an award of at t orneys f ees under 35

U. S. C. 285. HP and Appl e ar gue t hat t he case i s except i onal

because thi s i s t he t hi r d t i me Li nex has pr essed t he cl ai ms t he



6/13

Unite


FortheNo


6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Cour t f ound t o be val i d but not i nf r i nged, despi t e i ndi cat i ons of

t hei r subst ant i ve weakness agai nst t he 802. 11n st andard. The AP

manuf act ur er s, who col l ect i vel y i ncur r ed al most f our mi l l i on

dol l ar s def endi ng agai nst Li nex, seek r ei mbur sement f or al l of

t hei r at t or neys f ees.

LEGAL STANDARDS

Under 35 U. S. C. 285, t he cour t i n except i onal cases may

awar d r easonabl e at t or ney f ees t o t he pr evai l i ng par t y. I n

sever al cases l eadi ng up t o t hi s year , t he Feder al Ci r cui t

admoni shed t hat a di st r i ct cour t shoul d not awar d f ees unl ess i t

f i nds l i t i gat i on- r el at ed mi sconduct t hat woul d i ndependent l y be

sanct i onabl e, or l i t i gat i on t hat was bot h br ought i n subj ect i ve

bad f ai t h and obj ect i vel y basel ess. Br ooks Fur ni t ur e Mf g. ,

I nc. v. Dut ai l i er I nt ' l , I nc. , 393 F. 3d 1378, 1381 ( Fed. Ci r .

2005) . Exampl es of l i t i gat i on- r el at ed mi sconduct i ncl ude f r aud

or i nequi t abl e conduct i n pr ocur i ng t he pat ent ; vexat i ous or

unj ust i f i ed l i t i gat i on; and obj ect i vel y basel ess ar gument s t hat

no r easonabl e l i t i gant coul d bel i eve woul d succeed. I d. ; i LOR,

LLC v. Googl e, I nc. , 631 F. 3d 1372, 1378 ( 2011) .

Thi s year , however , t he Uni t ed Stat es Supreme Court r evi ewed

t wo f ee cl ai ms and al t er ed t he st andar d f or t he det er mi nat i on

subst ant i al l y. The Supr eme Cour t f ound t he Br ooks Fur ni t ur e t est

t o be unnecessari l y r i gi d and i nst ead opt ed f or a mor e hol i st i c,

equi t abl e appr oach. Oct ane Fi t ness , LLC v. I CON Heal t h &

Fi t ness, I nc. , 134 S. Ct . 1749, 1754 ( 2014) . The Cour t hel d t hat



7/13

Unite


FortheNo


7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

an except i onal case i s si mpl y one t hat st ands out f r om ot her s

wi t h r espect t o t he subst ant i ve st r engt h of a par t y' s l i t i gat i ng

posi t i on ( consi der i ng bot h t he gover ni ng l aw and t he f act s of t he

case) or t he unr easonabl e manner i n whi ch t he case was l i t i gat ed.

I d. at 1756. Ther e i s no pr eci se r ul e or f or mul a f or t hi s

det er mi nat i on and so the di st r i ct cour t shoul d consi der t he

t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ances. I d. Because t he except i onal case

det er mi nat i on may be i nf or med by t he di st r i ct cour t s uni que

i nsi ght i nt o t he manner i n whi ch t he case was l i t i gat ed, i t i s

wi t hi n t he sound di scret i on of t he di st r i ct cour t . Hi ghmar k I nc.

v. Al l car e Heal t h Mgmt . Sys. , I nc. , 134 S. Ct . 1744, 1748 ( 2014) .

DI SCUSSI ON

As a pr el i mi nar y mat t er , Li nex s r equest t hat t he Cour t def er

consi der at i on of t he f ees i ssue i s wi t hout mer i t . I f t hi s Cour t

deci des t he f ees i ssue now, t he Feder al Ci r cui t may consi der t he

over l appi ng summary j udgment and f ees i ssues t ogether , savi ng

j udi ci al r esour ces. See Nyst r om v. TREX Co. , 339 F. 3d 1347, 1350

( Fed. Ci r . 2003) ( opposi ng pi ecemeal appeal s) .

Def endant s cont end t hat t hi s case i s except i onal based on

Li nex s asser t i on of t he cl ai ms cont ai ni ng t he spread spect r um

t er m agai nst t he OFDM t echnol ogy pr act i ced by Def endant s. Two

ot her f or a, t he East er n Di st r i ct of Texas and t he I TC, pr evi ousl y

deci ded agai nst Li nex, const r ui ng spread spect r um as r equi r i ng

spreadi ng of t he bandwi dt h of t he dat a. Li nex t her ef or e shoul d

have known t hat i t coul d not use the pat ent cl ai ms l i mi t ed t o



8/13

Unite


FortheNo


8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

spread spect r um t o capt ur e devi ces pr act i ci ng t he di st i nct and

more compl ex OFDM t echnol ogy. Li nex nevert hel ess cont i nued t o

pr ess t hose pat ent cl ai ms agai nst Def endant s i n t he pr esent sui t .

Li nex responds t hat Def endant s overemphasi ze t he st r engt h and

i mpor t ance of t he t wo pr i or deci si ons. Al t hough t he Texas cour t s

const r uct i on of spr ead spect r um si gnal s was al most i dent i cal t o

t hi s Cour t s const r uct i on, Li nex ar gues t hat t he Texas cour t di d

not emphasi ze t he unknown qual i t y of t he dat a as t hi s Cour t di d.

Regar di ng t he I TC act i on, t he st af f at t or ney s opi ni on was not

f i nal . Never t hel ess, t he f act t hat Li nex set t l ed wi t h al l of t he

Texas def endant s soon af t er t hat cour t s cl ai m const r uct i on, and

wi t hdr ew i t s I TC cl ai ms i mmedi at el y af t er t he st af f at t or ney s

opi ni on was publ i shed, i ndi cat es t hat t hese opi ni ons were mor e

i mport ant t han Li nex now argues.

Even though nei t her f or um s det er mi nat i on was bi ndi ng on thi s

Cour t s det er mi nat i on as r es j udi cat a, Li nex was not f r ee t o

pur sue another case t arget i ng t he same t echnol ogy wi t h i mpuni t y.

Pat ent l i t i gat i on i s a bur densome vent ur e f or al l par t i es

i nvol ved. Thus, pl ai nt i f f s must conduct car ef ul i nvest i gat i on

bef or e br i ngi ng sui t . See Lumen Vi ew Tech. , LLC v.

Fi ndt hebest . com, I nc. , 2014 WL 2440867, at *6 ( S. D. N. Y. ) ( f i ndi ng

t he case to be except i onal because t he most basi c pr e- sui t



9/13

Unite


FortheNo


9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

i nvest i gat i on woul d have r eveal ed t hat t he i nf r i ngement

al l egat i ons had no mer i t ) . 4

Li nex shoul d have known that i t s spread spect r um cl ai ms woul d

not succeed agai nst OFDM t echnol ogy. The i nvent or of Li nex s

pat ent s, Donal d Schi l l i ng, hi msel f char act er i zed spr ead spect r um

i n hi s publ i cat i on as:

a means of t r ansmi ssi on i n whi ch t he si gnal occupi es abandwi dt h i n excess of t he mi ni mum necessary t o send t hei nf ormat i on; t he band spr ead i s accompl i shed by means of acode whi ch i s i ndependent of t he data, and a synchroni zedr ecept i on wi t h t he code at t he r ecei ver i s used f ordespreadi ng and subsequent dat a r ecover y.

Docket No. 235- 17 ( Schi l l i ng Tut or i al ) at 2. I f Li nex di d not

know i ni t i al l y t hat i t s spr ead spect r um cl ai ms coul d not be

st r et ched t o cover OFDM t echnol ogy, i t shoul d have known af t er i t

l i t i gat ed t hose cl ai ms i n Texas and i n t he I TC. Li nex ur ged t wo

f or a t o adopt i t s over br oad def i ni t i on of spr ead spect r um

si gnal s, to no avai l .

Al t hough Li nex ar gues t hat i t st i l l di d not know t hat t hose

cl ai ms wer e f r i vol ous, i t s act i ons suggest ot her wi se. I n 2008,

af t er an unf avor abl e cl ai m const r uct i on deci si on i n Texas, Li nex

r et ur ned t o t he USPTO t o br oaden t he scope of i t s pat ent s. Li nex

4 See al so Fed. R. Ci v. P. 11; cf . Mol ski v. Ever gr eenDynast y Cor p. , 500 F. 3d 1047, 1051 ( 9t h Ci r . 2007) ( l i st i ngf actor s of Ni nt h Ci r cui t s vexat i ous l i t i gant st andar d, i ncl udi ngwhet her l i t i gant had a hi st or y of br i ngi ng har assi ng anddupl i cat i ve sui t s , l i t i gant s mot i ve f or pur sui ng t he l i t i gat i on,whet her l i t i gant had a good f ai t h expect at i on of pr evai l i ng,whet her l i t i gant caused unnecessar y expense t o t he par t i es orpl aced needl ess bur den on t he cour t s, and whether sanct i ons woul dbe necessar y t o pr ot ect t he par t i es) .



10/13

Unite


FortheNo


10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

del et ed t he t er m spr ead spect r um si gnal s f r om sever al of t he

cl ai ms i n t he 219 pat ent . See Docket No. 235- 22 ( st at i ng

pat ent ee s i nt ent br oadl y t o cover spr ead spect r um pr ocessi ng of

al l t ypes wi t hi n t he convent i onal meani ng of spr ead spect r um ) .

I n 2011, Li nex di d t he same wi t h t he 812 pat ent . That Li nex

chose t o br oaden cer t ai n cl ai ms of t he 219 and 812 patent s

suggest s t hat i t knew about t he subst ant i ve weakness of i t s spr ead

spect r um cl ai ms. Mor eover , Schi l l i ng admi t t ed t hat , i n dr af t i ng

t he r ei ssue pat ent s, he i nt ended t o cover syst ems t hat he di d not

i nvent . Schi l l i ng Depo. , 257: 6- 21 ( st at i ng t hat he t ook a

chance and dr af t ed cl ai ms t hat mi ght cover any spr ead spect r um

syst em, i ncl udi ng some he mi ght not know about ) . Because the

cont ext of a spr ead spect r um syst em was i nt egr al t o pat ent abi l i t y,

t hi s was i mpr oper . MSJ Or der at 22- 29 ( hol di ng t hat t he cl ai ms

l acki ng t he spr ead spect r um si gnal s l i mi t at i on wer e i nval i d

because ever y l i mi t at i on was di scl osed by the Paul r aj pr i or ar t

r ef er ence) .

Li nex next ar gues t hat , i n spi t e of t he t hr ee f or a s nar r ow

i nt er pr et at i on of spr ead spect r um t echnol ogy, i t had a reasonabl e

case f or i nf r i ngement . I n t hi s case, Li nex ar gued t hat t he HT-

LTF, a pr eor dai ned t r ai ni ng f i el d sent bef or e t he dat a si gnal , was

t he dat a r equi r ed by the Cour t s const r uct i on t o cr eat e a spr ead

spect r um si gnal . Li nex s ar gument was cont r adi ct ed by i t s own

i nf r i ngement exper t , who char act er i zed t he HT- LTF as t est and

cont r ol data more anal ogous t o a code, r ather t han message



11/13

Unite


FortheNo


11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

dat a. MSJ Or der at 33. Al t hough Li nex hypot hesi zed t hat even

t est and cont r ol dat a coul d be dat a under t he pat ent s- i n- sui t ,

t he Cour t r ej ect ed t hi s t heor y because the speci f i cat i on makes

cl ear t hat dat a i s what i s i nt ended t o be communi cat ed t o t he

r eci pi ent . I d. Fur t her , even i f t he Texas cour t di d not

emphasi ze that dat a i s t he cont ent or message and i s di st i nct

f r om a code, i t di d not need t o do so because those ar e t he

gener al l y accept ed meani ngs of t he t er ms wi t hi n t he ar t , and

nothi ng i n t he patent suggest s another meani ng. See MSJ Or der at

7- 8; Schi l l i ng Tut or i al at 2 ( di scussi ng a code as i ndependent of

t he dat a) . Accor di ngl y, Li nex s i nf r i ngement posi t i on under t he

Cour t s const r uct i on was weak.

The AP manuf act urer s cont end t hat Li nex s unr easonabl e exper t

damages r epor t i s an al t er nat i ve gr ound f or f i ndi ng t he case

except i onal . They ar gue t hat t he unr easonabl eness of Li nex s

damages demand i s an exampl e of i t s al l egedl y abusi ve l i t i gat i on

st r at egi es. Eon- Net LP v. Fl agst ar Bancor p, 653 F. 3d 1314, 1324-

26 ( Fed. Ci r . 2011) ( di st r i ct cour t s f i ndi ng t hat pat ent ee s bad

f ai t h set t l ement t act i cs suppor t ed r ul i ng t hat t he case was

except i onal ) . Because t he r ecor d upon whi ch a deci si on on damages

woul d be made was never f ul l y devel oped, t he Cour t cannot

det ermi ne whet her Li nex s damages demand was unreasonabl e. For

exampl e, t he Cour t cannot determi ne on t hi s r ecor d whether t he

pat ent ed f eat ur e dr ove demand of t he ent i r e pr oduct .



12/13

Unite


FortheNo


12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I n sum, Li nex knew or shoul d have known t hat i t s spr ead

spect r um cl ai ms wer e mer i t l ess as asser t ed agai nst OFDM

t echnol ogy. Li nex s act i ons and admi ssi ons, consi der ed al ongsi de

sever al f or a s deci si ons r ej ect i ng i t s l i t i gat i on ar gument s, show

t hat Li nex knew t he l i mi t s of t he spr ead spect r um t echnol ogy that

was cr uci al t o t he novel t y of i t s pat ent s. Li nex exhi bi t ed an

over al l vexat i ous l i t i gat i on st r at egy by cont i nui ng t o hol d t hese

gr oundl ess cl ai ms over Def endant s heads t o i ncr ease pot ent i al

set t l ement amount s. Monol i t hi c Power Sys. , I nc. v. O2 Mi cr o I nt ' l

Lt d. , 726 F. 3d 1359, 1367 ( Fed. Ci r . 2013) cer t . deni ed, 134 S.

Ct . 1546 ( 2014) ( af f i r mi ng di st r i ct cour t s awar d of at t or ney s

f ees) . But t he appet i t e f or l i censi ng r evenue cannot over power a

l i t i gant s and i t s counsel s obl i gat i on t o f i l e cases reasonabl y

based i n l aw and f act and t o l i t i gat e t hose cases i n good f ai t h.

Eon- Net LP, 653 F. 3d at 1328. Because Li nex r epeat edl y at t empt ed

t o br oaden t he r each of i t s pat ent s t o capt ur e t echnol ogy i t knew

i t di d not i nvent , t hi s case i s except i onal . An awar d of

at t or neys f ees on t he spr ead spect r um cl ai ms i s war r ant ed.

Def endant s concede that t hey have not pr ovi ded detai l ed

descr i pt i ons of t he bi l l ed t i me and t asks t hat can pr oper l y be

at t r i but ed t o t he spr ead spect r um cl ai ms. Nor do t hey j ust i f y t he

r at es at whi ch t he at t or neys bi l l ed. Bot h ar e r equi r ed under

Ni nt h Ci r cui t case l aw. Wel ch v. Met r o Li f e I ns. Co. , 480 F. 3d

942, 948 ( 9t h Ci r . 2007) . Because the Cour t has now det ermi ned

t hat onl y t he f ees f ai r l y at t r i but abl e t o t he spr ead spect r um



13/13

Unite


FortheNo


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

cl ai ms can be r ecover ed, each Def endant i s di r ect ed to compi l e an

account i ng of f ees l i mi t ed t o wor k on t hese cl ai ms, i n suf f i ci ent

det ai l t o sat i sf y t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t s st andar d f or f ee awar ds.

Def endant s counsel s hour l y r at es must al so be di scl osed and

j ust i f i ed. Def endant s account i ng of f ees must be submi t t ed no

l at er t han f our t een days f r om t he i ssuance of t hi s or der .

Pl ai nt i f f may r espond seven days ther eaf t er , addr essi ng onl y t he

amount of f ees cl ai med. Def endant s may r epl y seven days af t er

t hat . The mat t er wi l l be deci ded on t he paper s.

I T I S SO ORDERED.

Dated:CLAUDI A WI LKENUni t ed St at es Di st r i ct J udge

9/15/2014


Documents

Linex Fee Order