Attorney’s Fees Awarded for Misconduct Spanning Across District Court, PTAB, and Federal Circuit

Nov 2, 2020

Reading Time : 3 min

In July 2015, Game and Technology Co., Ltd. (GAT) filed a complaint against Wargaming Group Ltd. (“Wargaming”) for infringement of GAT’s ’243 Patent. In February 2016, Wargaming informed GAT it had not been properly served. In March 2017, Wargaming filed a petition for IPR and the district court litigation was stayed.

GAT filed a preliminary response in the IPR, arguing that Wargaming’s petition was time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). In support, GAT submitted a “Witness Statement” from a process server located in the U.K. GAT asserted that the process server served Wargaming’s registered agent in London pursuant to the Hague Convention. GAT also filed an “Attestation by Superior Courts of England and Wales, Foreign Processing Section regarding service upon Wargaming.Net.LLP, dated January 6, 2016,” which included a summons with a clerk’s signature and a court seal (as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4). Wargaming filed a reply with a declaration by its registered agent, stating that the agent had no record or recollection of being served.

The PTAB instituted the IPR, and ordered special briefing regarding GAT’s request to dismiss the petition as time-barred. At his deposition, the process server testified that the Attestation filed by GAT in the IPR was “most definitely not the bundle that [he] served.” Following the deposition, GAT filed a Proof of Service in the district court, stating that service was effected on December 14, 2015. GAT attached a witness statement by the process server, with accompanying documents that GAT asserted the process server had served on Wargaming’s registered agent. The summons, however, did not bear a court seal or clerk’s signature. GAT then filed those documents with the PTAB, and argued that it had properly effected service despite the fact that these documents did not include a court’s seal or clerk’s signature. GAT also argued for the first time that service was properly effected because a complaint and summons had been mailed to Wargaming’s purported alter ego in Cyprus. The PTAB issued a final written decision, finding the challenged claims unpatentable and holding that the petition was not time-barred because the summons contained in the Attestation (bearing the court seal and signature) was not served by the process server.

GAT appealed to the Federal Circuit. In addition to arguing that service was proper, GAT argued for the first time that Wargaming waived deficiencies in service. The Federal Circuit rejected this newly raised argument, and affirmed the PTAB’s decision. Following the appeal, the district court lifted the stay and Wargaming moved for fees under § 285.

The court first addressed whether it could award attorney’s fees for GAT’s conduct before the PTAB. The court found that it could because the PTAB proceedings effectively replaced the district court litigation, and also because some of GAT’s actions and arguments regarding service were rooted in the district court litigation.

The court next determined whether GAT’s conduct was “exceptional.” First, the court found that a reasonable investigation by GAT would have uncovered that the summons served on Wargaming’s agent did not bear a court seal or clerk’s signature, and therefore was improper. Second, the court found that GAT acted unreasonably in continuing to argue—in the district court and the PTAB—that service was proper after learning that the summons did not bear the required court seal and clerk’s signature. And third, the court found GAT acted unreasonably in continuously changing its arguments regarding service—including by raising new arguments on appeal and in opposition to Wargaming’s motion for attorney’s fees. Viewed collectively, the court found that this misconduct supported an exceptional case determination.

Finally, the court considered whether Wargaming’s request for fees was reasonable. Wargaming sought an award only for fees incurred due to GAT’s unreasonable tactics, and supported its calculation with a declaration describing its counsel’s qualifications, their hourly rates, and the amount of time spent on tasks arising directly from GAT’s misconduct. The hours for which Wargaming sought reimbursement amounted to approximately one-third of the total time it expended on the IPR and appeal. The court found that the information submitted by Wargaming was sufficiently detailed and bore a nexus to GAT’s improper tactics. Accordingly, the court awarded Wargaming its requested fees (with minor modifications) for GAT’s unreasonable actions across all three venues.

Practice Tip: Parties moving for an exceptional case determination and attorney’s fees in district court should consider whether such misconduct spans more than one venue. If so, parties should further consider whether to seek fees arising from misconduct in those other venues.

Game and Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Wargaming Group, Ltd., LA CV16-06554 JAK (SKx), Order (C.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2020) (Kronstadt, J)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

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

IP Newsflash

July 25, 2025

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Qualcomm II) raised questions about the extent to which petitioners can rely on applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in inter partes review proceedings.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. largely cabins the Qualcomm II decision to its particular facts and makes clear that AAPA can be used as evidence of background knowledge as part of an obviousness argument.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

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.