940 F.3d 675
Fed. Cir.2019Background
- B.E. Technology sued Facebook in 2012 for infringing claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314.
- Facebook (and others) filed inter partes review petitions; the PTAB held the asserted claims unpatentable and the Federal Circuit affirmed those PTAB decisions.
- After claim cancellation, Facebook moved for judgment on the pleadings; the district court dismissed the infringement suit as moot (not on the merits).
- Facebook sought and the Clerk taxed $4,424.20 in costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d); the district court affirmed, finding Facebook the prevailing party.
- B.E. appealed the costs award, arguing mootness dismissal lacked the required "judicial imprimatur" to make Facebook a prevailing party.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding CRST controls and that a nonmerits dismissal that "rebuffs" the plaintiff can make a defendant the prevailing party for costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Facebook is the "prevailing party" under Rule 54(d) after district-court dismissal for mootness following PTAB claim cancellation | Dismissal for mootness (following PTAB cancellation) lacks the judicial imprimatur Buckhannon requires; therefore Facebook did not prevail in district court | Under CRST, a defendant prevails if the plaintiff's challenge is rebuffed, even for nonmerits dismissals; the dismissal here provided the necessary judicial imprimatur | Facebook is the prevailing party; CRST controls and a nonmerits mootness dismissal that rebuffs the claim suffices for prevailing-party status |
| Whether merits decision must be in district court (vs. PTO) for prevailing-party status | Cancellation by the PTO, not a district-court merits adjudication, means no change in legal relationship via district-court merits ruling | Substance over form: dismissal of the district action for mootness after PTO cancellation still rebuffs the plaintiff and places judicial imprimatur on the claim | PTO merits victory does not defeat prevailing-party status; the district-court mootness dismissal nonetheless conferred judicial imprimatur and Facebook prevailed |
Key Cases Cited
- CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC, 136 S. Ct. 1642 (2016) (defendant may be prevailing party even if judgment rejects plaintiff's claim for a nonmerits reason; prevailing if the plaintiff's challenge is rebuffed)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (prevailing-party status requires judicial relief or imprimatur; rejects "catalyst" theory)
- Raniere v. Microsoft Corp., 887 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (applies CRST in patent-fee context; nonmerits dismissal can confer prevailing-party status under §285)
- Manildra Milling Corp. v. Ogilvie Mills, Inc., 76 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (advocates a uniform definition of prevailing party in patent litigation)
- Highway Equip. Co. v. FECO, Ltd., 469 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (review standard: interpretation of "prevailing party" is reviewed de novo)