Attorneys’ Fees Award for Plaintiff’s Inadequate Pre-Suit Infringement Investigation Affirmed Even Though Trial Court Never Reached Merits of Infringement

May 3, 2019

Reading Time : 3 min

In 2013, ThermoLife International, LLC (“ThermoLife”) brought a patent infringement suit against two dietary supplement manufacturers, Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Hi-Tech”) and Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Vital”). ThermoLife accused Hi-Tech and Vital of infringing four patents related to methods and chemical compositions for improving vascular function and physical performance. The district court bifurcated infringement and invalidity, holding first the bench trial on invalidity. At the bench trial, the district court held all four patents invalid for anticipation or obviousness, removing the need for a further trial on infringement.  

Hi-Tech and Vital then filed a motion for attorneys’ fees, arguing that the case was “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 because ThermoLife’s presuit infringement investigation was inadequate as to one of the claims of the four asserted patents. The district court agreed and awarded $1.3 million in attorneys’ fees to Hi-Tech and Vital. 

ThermoLife appealed the award of attorneys’ fees on multiple grounds, all of which the Federal Circuit rejected. First, ThermoLife argued that the district court’s “exceptional case” determination was flawed because it was based on infringement issues and infringement was not fully litigated. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that, while it was “unusual” to base an award of attorneys’ fees on issues that were not actually litigated before the court, it was not erroneous to do so as long as due process and other procedural rights were respected in deciding the question. Here, ThermoLife did not point to any way in which its due process or procedural rights were violated.

ThermoLife further argued that it did not have sufficient notice that the defendants considered the infringement allegations baseless. The Federal Circuit held, however, that early notice, while important in many exception case analyses, is not a rigid prerequisite to obtaining attorneys’ fees—it is merely one factor the district can consider in deciding whether to make an award. In this case, it made sense to avoid retroactive imposition of a notice requirement because all parties to the litigation, including several defendants not present in the appeal, agreed to a bifurcated schedule that gave priority to the validity issues.  

The Federal Circuit further held that the district court did not err in determining that ThermoLife’s presuit investigation was inadequate for lack of testing. Whether presuit testing of an accused product is required depends on the circumstances of the particular case, including “the availability of the products at issue, the existence and costs of testing, and whether other sufficiently reliable information exists.” Here, there was undisputed evidence that the accused dietary supplements were readily available and that “simple tests” were available to determine how much of a claimed amino acid was present in the accused supplements. Further, although there was some evidence that ThermoLife relied on product advertising and labeling in its presuit infringement analysis, ThermoLife itself criticized the accuracy of the labels and advertisements. Thus, the Federal Circuit concluded, it was not erroneous for the district court to find that ThermoLife’s failure to test the accused products was unreasonable.

Finally, ThermoLife challenged four additional findings made by the district court in support of its conclusion that ThermoLife engaged in a “pattern of action” that supported its exceptional case determination. Specifically, the district court found that (i) ThermoLife was only a very small participant in the market, (ii) ThermoLife brought the suit just a few months before three of the patents were set to expire, (iii) ThermoLife brought many suits and (iv) most of the suits settled for “seemingly small amounts.” The Federal Circuit held that these facts alone would not be sufficient to show misconduct sufficient to support an exceptional case finding, and stressed that low settlement amounts could be the result of various legitimate considerations. Nevertheless, because ThermoLife’s presuit investigation was so inadequate, the Federal Circuit held that the district court’s consideration of additional factors did not undermine the ultimate determination that it was an exceptional case.

Practice Tip: A complete and thorough presuit investigation should be performed for all accused products before a suit is filed. This may include product testing when the product is publicly available and testing is the only reliable means by which infringement can be determined. 

ThermoLife Int’l LLC v. GNC Corp., Nos. 2018-1657, 2018-1666, slip op. (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2019).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 11, 2025

In considering a motion to dismiss infringement claims for two related patents, the District of Massachusetts recently held that pre-suit knowledge of a “parent” patent, without more, is insufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge of the “child” patent for purposes of indirect and willful infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 8, 2025

Following a jury verdict finding trade secret misappropriation, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted-in-part a plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction to prohibit defendants from using plaintiff’s trade secrets. The district court further required defendants to reassign to plaintiff patents and patent applications that disclosed or were derived from plaintiff’s trade secrets as part of its equitable relief.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 6, 2025

In ruling on a recent motion to strike, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas permitted a damages expert to rely on a damages theory based on defendant’s “avoided costs,” holding that this theory did not run afoul of the “entire market value rule.”

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the original ruling, the judge adopted the broader rule that IPR estoppel applies to device art that is “materially identical” to patents or printed publications that petitioners raised, or could have raised, in an IPR. Following that ruling, however, the Federal Circuit issued its Ingenico decision adopting the narrower view that IPR estoppel applies only to “grounds” based on patents and printed publications and not to device-based grounds. Citing Ingenico as a “change of law,” defendant moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling, and the court granted the motion.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based on petitions advancing different constructions of the same claim term. The Director expressed concerns that permitting multiple petitions based on alternative claim constructions effectively circumvents word count limitations, strains board resources, and undermines procedural efficiency.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.