Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands District Court’s Fee Award Due to Consideration of Irrelevant 'Red Flags'

November 5, 2024

Reading Time : 3 min

The Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s fee award because the district court considered certain information that was not relevant to the question of whether plaintiff’s case was exceptional. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that only those “red flags” that related to the successful Section 101 defense, which served as the basis for the district court’s grant of summary judgment, could be used to show the case was fatally flawed.   

Plaintiff sued several defendants, including DISH, for infringement of patents generally related to digital data compression. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the asserted claims were not directed to patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court denied that motion, explaining it would consider invalidity arguments after claim construction. In so doing, the court noted that other district courts upheld similar claims in the face of similar Section 101 arguments. By the time the district court returned to invalidity arguments, only one patent remained in dispute against DISH. 

On summary judgment, the district court found the asserted claims of that patent ineligible, a decision affirmed by the Federal Circuit. While that appeal was pending, the district court granted DISH’s motion for attorneys’ fees. The district court found the case against DISH exceptional due to six “red flags” that it believed should have signaled to plaintiff that its case was fatally flawed. Those red flags included (1) a district court decision holding similar claims of a related patent ineligible, (2) a Federal Circuit decision holding unrelated claims ineligible, (3) a PTAB decision invalidating similar claims of a related patent for obviousness (4) a reexamination finding claims of the patent at issue invalid as obvious and anticipated, (5) a notice letter sent by DISH to plaintiff, and (6) DISH’s expert’s opinions.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit explained that the district court failed to properly weigh each “red flag,” including because some of the so-called “red flags” were irrelevant. Regarding the first red flag, the Section 101 decision holding similar, related claims ineligible, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that it should have been a significant red flag to plaintiff to reconsider the eligibility of its asserted claims. The Federal Circuit disagreed, however, with the district court’s reliance on decisions from the Federal Circuit and PTAB regarding unrelated claims or other areas of the patent statute. Indeed, the Federal Circuit’s prior decision was related to different technology. Absent further explanation, such as a chart comparing the claims of the patents side by side, such a case did not necessarily inform the plaintiff that its case was meritless. According to the court, those decisions should not have been considered red flags. Similarly, the Board’s decisions applied different legal standards and did not include sufficient information to determine whether the claims of the patent at issue failed under Section 101. That is, the Board’s finding that an element existed in the prior art in the course of an obviousness analysis is not the same as a finding that an element was conventional in the art—or that the invention is a non-conventional arrangement of conventional pieces—as required under Section 101.  Similarly, related ex-parte reexaminations used a different claim construction that was determined under a different claim construction standard, and the district court failed to explain how the reexamination decisions supported a finding of exceptionality.  

Finally, the last two “red flags,” without more, did not show that this was an exceptional case. DISH’s “notice letter” included only two short paragraphs addressing the ineligibility of the relevant claims, and these paragraphs were filled with conclusory statements. It did not provide sufficient analysis to put plaintiff on notice that its arguments were so meritless as to amount to an exceptional case. The Federal Circuit also cautioned that if such notice letters were sufficient to trigger an exceptional case finding, then every party would send such letters early in litigation to ensure entitlement to attorneys’ fees.   

Similarly, DISH’s expert witness provided ordinary, typical expert opinions with which plaintiff’s expert disagreed. While DISH’s expert may have been more persuasive, his opinions were not sufficient to put plaintiff on notice that its claims were meritless.

Practice Tip: Although subject to an abuse of discretion standard, attorneys’ fees awards may be reversed on appeal where the basis for the award is disconnected from the merits of the relevant issue or not adequately explained by the district court. Thus, to support a motion for fees based on an exceptional case finding, a party should connect its grounds for the award directly to decisions in its favor in the case. And a party opposing a fee motion should identify any grounds cited by the moving party that were irrelevant to the outcome or that were insufficiently explained by the other party or the district court.

Realtime Adaptive Streaming L.L.C. v. Sling TV, L.L.C. et al., C.A. No. 2023-1035 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 23, 2024).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and not enough emphasis on the investment in the parallel litigation. Weighing the factors as a whole, the Director determined that institution should be denied.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

In an institution decision following the USPTO’s withdrawal of its Fintiv Memo, the board addressed discretionary denial of an IPR under Fintiv in view of a parallel ITC investigation. The board noted it would not consider the now-rescinded June 2022 memo from then-director Vidal which instructed that the PTAB would not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv when the request is based on a parallel ITC investigation. The board conducted a Fintiv analysis in view of the ITC investigation, but ultimately determined that discretionary denial was not warranted in this particular situation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 23, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same patent unpatentable because the PTAB applied a lower burden of proof than what is required to invalidate claims in district court.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgment action based on defendant’s later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 1, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest exception. In so doing, the court reaffirmed that disclosure of privileged information to third parties will generally waive privilege unless it can be shown that the parties’ interests are identical and the communications are legal, not solely commercial.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

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.