District Court Awards $820k in Attorney’s Fees Based on Plaintiff’s Litigation Conduct

Nov 11, 2014

Reading Time : 2 min

IPVX, a non­practicing entity, initially sued Voxernet for patent infringement over U.S. Patent No. 5,572,576, which relates to a telephone answering device allowing a user to check messages remotely. IPVX accused the Voxer App, a smartphone app allowing the exchange of voice, text, and image messages between users. On July 3, 2014, a day after the claim construction hearing, the court granted summary judgment of non­infringement in favor of Voxer—finding no material issues of fact over how the Voxer App worked. While IPVX moved to vacate, alter, amend or obtain relief from judgment under the federal rules, Voxer moved for attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

“Exceptional Case” Standard

In determining whether the case was “exceptional” and thus, whether it merited an award of attorney’s fees, the district court looked to the Supreme Court’s recent Octane Fitness decision. Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014). There, the Supreme Court clarified that “an ‘exceptional’ case is simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position . . . or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated.” Id. at 1756. The Court also noted nonexclusive factors such as “frivolousness, motivation, objective unreasonableness (both in the factual and legal components of the case) and the need in particular circumstances to advance considerations of compensation and deterrence.” Id. at 1756, n.6.

Plaintiff’s Unreasonable Positions and Litigation Conduct

The district court first noted that from the outset, IPVX’s infringement positions were unreasonable. IPVX’s attempts to link the Voxer App to a telephone network were “vague and conclusory” as it failed to tie any of the claim elements to the Voxer App. Similarly, IPVX’s positions on proposed claim constructions were “absurd and farfetched.” The court found a complete absence of evidence to support an infringement position either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

The court next looked at IPVX’s litigation conduct and concluded that this “case stands out from others” because of the “assembly­line fashion” in which the case was litigated. The court found no evidence of a pre­suit investigation of the Voxer App and noted that discovery was “carelessly” conducted with requests being sent to Voxer that had nothing to do with the accused device. Ultimately the district court concluded that “[f]rom the litigation conduct in this case, it appears that IPVX is actually not willing to invest the resources to prove up its infringement case.”

The court thus found the case to be exceptional under Octane Fitness, and proceeded to award attorney’s fees in the amount of $820,642. It summarized its holding as follows, which serves as a useful warning to plaintiffs in general: “IPVX’s position on infringement was objectively baseless a the inception of the lawsuit, and IPVX proceeded in this litigation without developing any factual record to support its infringement contentions, either on literal infringement or on infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.”

IPVX Patent Holdings, Inc. v. Voxernet LLC, No. 5:13­cv­01708 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2014).

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

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

© 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.