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

June 5, 2026

The Supreme Court unanimously held that for a complaint of induced infringement, a patent owner must allege that the accused infringer took affirmative, not passive, steps to encourage direct infringement. Thus, where a generic drug has a skinny label, to induce infringement of the carved-out patented use of the drug, the generic company must have taken steps that were designed to cause others to perform the patented use, not just steps that could cause such conduct.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 07, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois granted a summary judgment motion of no invalidity based on indefiniteness because the qualitative terms like “sufficiently slow” and “desired period of time” were definite when viewed in light of the surrounding claim language and specification.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 9, 2026

In the April 1, 2026 edition of the Official Gazette, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced a new procedural framework that permits patent owners to submit a limited, early response to a request for ex parte reexamination.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice for failing to plausibly allege patent infringement. The court found that the allegations of direct infringement were insufficiently pled where the images of the accused product included in the complaint did not appear to show a particular necessary element of the claims.

...

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.