District Court Calculates Award of $122k in Sanctions for Discovery Abuses

Dec 5, 2014

Reading Time : 1 min

Over the course of the case, Zest filed a motion for spoliation and discovery abuse sanctions against Implant, seeking reimbursement of $224,711.68. Defendants argued that the requested fees were unreasonable and excessive. Although the court found that Implant acted in bad faith, it nonetheless reduced the award down to $122,486.95.

To calculate a reasonable amount for sanctions, the court used the lodestar method, multiplying the number of hours Zest reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate. The court noted that the burden to demonstrate the reasonableness of the number of hours spent was on Zest, and included a good faith effort to exclude hours that were excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary. Implant had the burden of rebuttal, which required evidence challenging the accuracy and reasonableness of the hours charged or the facts asserted by Zest. The court also explained that once calculated, the lodestar amount is presumptively the reasonable fee amount and could be adjusted only in “rare and exceptional” cases.

The court analyzed the fees in some detail and made findings. It concluded Zest’s hourly rates for attorneys were reasonable but found that the paralegal rate was not. The court also granted Implant’s objection to costs incurred in preparing the statement of costs—a sum of about $26k. The court also reduced the amount because of duplicative attorney time and criticized Zest’s attorneys for billing by the quarter­hour. Based on the various reductions, the court determined that a reasonable amount of sanctions to be awarded to Zest was $122,486.95.

Zest IP Holdings, LLC v. Implant Direct Mfg., LLC, No. 10­cv­0541­GPC­WVG (S.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2014).

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

December 18, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a $20 million jury verdict in favor of a patentee and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the patentee did not own the asserted patents at the time it filed suit and therefore lacked standing.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 17, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision finding claims that had been subject to an ex parte reexamination unpatentable. As a threshold issue, the court held that IPR estoppel under 35 USC § 315(e)(1) does not apply to ongoing ex parte reexaminations. Accordingly, the Patent Office did not err in continuing the reexamination after issuing final written decisions in co-pending IPRs.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 15, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s demand for enhanced damages based on willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, explaining that neither a demand for damages under § 284 nor an accusation of willful infringement amount to a claim for relief that can be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for a writ of mandamus that challenged the PTO Director’s reliance on “settled expectations” to discretionarily deny two inter partes review (IPR) petitions. In so doing, the court explained that, while it was not deciding whether the Director’s use of “settled expectations” was correct, the petitioner’s arguments about what factors the Director may consider when deciding whether to institute an IPR or post-grant review (PGR) are not generally reviewable and did not provide sufficient basis for mandamus review here.

...

Read More

© 2026 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.