Hytera Communications Corp. Ltd. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., 1:17-cv-01794

Background:

Hytera Communications Corp., Ltd. sued Motorola Solutions, Inc.; Motorola moved for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 after prevailing on disputed claim construction and summary judgment issues.
Central claim construction dispute concerned the '846 patent's Step SI03 "treble boost processing," construed as "an automatic amplification of all treble frequencies using a gain greater than 1," and whether the patent required a separate "second threshold" or bass-boost capability.
Motorola argued Hytera's suit was retaliatory and objectively baseless because Motorola's accused products lacked the "second threshold" and bass-boost processing; Motorola pointed to prior trade-secret victories against Hytera as circumstantial evidence of improper motive.
Hytera maintained it reasonably asserted infringement based on an "or" in the patent (treble boost OR bass boost) and, after claim construction, adjusted its theory to argue a combined overall gain plus bass reduction could produce the required treble gain.
The court found no direct nexus between prior trade-secret findings and the patent case, no evidence of bad-faith litigation tactics or unreasonable delay by Hytera, and that Hytera's post-construction theory, while strained, was not wholly baseless.
Conclusion: the court denied Motorola's § 285 fee request, holding Motorola failed to prove the case was "exceptional" by a preponderance of the evidence.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 based on subjective bad faith/retaliation	Hytera: suit was brought in good faith; prior litigation irrelevant	Motorola: suit was retaliatory given prior trade-secret losses and ITC findings against Hytera	Court: No sufficient evidence of bad faith or retaliation; speculative; not exceptional
Whether Hytera's infringement theory (treble boost / second threshold) was objectively baseless	Hytera: "or" in claim allows treble boost or bass boost; after construction offered combined-volume-plus-bass-reduction theory to meet treble gain >1	Motorola: accused products lack the "second threshold" and do not perform bass-boost; Hytera's interpretation contradicts claim construction	Court: Motorola prevailed on construction; Hytera's positions were strained but not frivolous or entirely baseless
Whether Hytera failed in its duty to reassess claims after claim construction	Hytera: altered its theory post-construction and pursued a technically plausible alternative	Motorola: Hytera should have abandoned untenable theories once construction issued	Court: Hytera did adjust its theory; its post-construction efforts were not unreasonable
Whether attorney fees should be awarded under § 285	Hytera: no exceptional circumstances; no bad faith; cooperative litigation conduct	Motorola: seeks fees because case "stands out" and claims were meritless	Court: Denied § 285 fees; Motorola did not prove exceptionality by preponderance

Key Cases Cited

Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014) (Supreme Court standard for § 285: totality of circumstances, either subjective bad faith or objectively meritless claims)
Evident Corp. v. Church & Dwight Co., 399 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (discusses fee awards to prevailing parties under § 285)
MarcTec, LLC v. Johnson & Johnson, 664 F.3d 907 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (circumstantial evidence may establish subjective bad faith)
Kilopass Tech., Inc. v. Sidense Corp., 738 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (bad-faith findings can rest on circumstantial evidence)
Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 726 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (duty to reassess claims after claim construction)
Thermolife Int'l LLC v. GNC Corp., 922 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (consideration of defendant notice and timing in § 285 analysis)
Blackbird Tech LLC v. Health In Motion LLC, 944 F.3d 910 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (clarifies that lack of early notice from a defendant is a factor, but not a prerequisite, in § 285 determinations)