Lumen View Technology, LLC v. Findthebest.com, Inc.
63 F. Supp. 3d 321
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- FTB seeks attorneys’ fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285 after this case was deemed exceptional.
- Lumen View Technology, LLC is a patent-holding non-practicing entity, alleged to be a shell entity pursuing patent infringement suits.
- Lumen sued FTB for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,069,073 (‘073 Patent) based on a matchmaking system.
- The ‘073 Patent was found abstract and not patentable under § 101 in 2013; Lumen appealed but the appeal was dismissed following Alice’s decision.
- Post-Alice, Octane Fitness clarified the standard for “exceptional” cases, prompting a fee request by FTB.
- The court ultimately awarded FTB its fees with an enhanced multiplier and costs, and declined recovery on related RICO fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this case is “exceptional” under § 285. | FTB contends the case meets Octane Fitness criteria for deterrence and compensation. | Lumen opposes further discretion to enhance fees beyond lodestar. | Yes; the case is exceptional and eligible for fee-shifting. |
| How to calculate the lodestar and ensure reasonableness of hours and rates. | FTB argues the lodestar is reasonable after excluding unrelated RICO work. | Lumen seeks reductions for time entries and contention of potential overstaffing. | Lodestar amount found reasonable after appropriate exclusions; $148,592.00 before enhancement. |
| Whether an enhancement to the lodestar is warranted and, if so, the amount. | FTB seeks an enhancement to deter predatory litigation by Lumen. | Lumen challenges enhancements as contrary to Perdue and similar precedents. | Enhancement granted; multiplier of two, yielding total fees of $297,184.00. |
| What is recoverable as costs and whether interest should accrue. | FTB seeks costs and interest from the date of the May 30, 2014 decision. | Lumen does not contest costs or interest amount. | Costs awarded: $4,899.63; interest at 9% from May 30, 2014. |
| Whether related RICO litigation costs are recoverable in this action. | FTB contends related RICO costs should be included. | RICO costs are not recoverable in the patent fee action. | RICO-related fees and costs excluded from recovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (U.S. 2010) (guides when to enhance a lodestar amount; deterrence rationale)
- Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (U.S. 2014) (defines exceptional case standard for § 285 fee-shifting)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (reasonable hours and rates; documentation required)
- Bywaters v. United States, 670 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (factors for reasonableness of fee enhancement; lodestar as baseline)
- City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (U.S. 1992) (uniform construction of fee-shifting statutes; reasonableness standard)
- Junker v. Eddings, 396 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (fee awards context; enhancement considerations)
- Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chem. Co., 736 F.2d 688 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (foundational considerations for fee-shifting in complex litigation)
- Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Mylan, 549 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (factors for calculating reasonable rates and hours)
- In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 818 F.2d 226 (2d Cir. 1987) (practice of item-by-item review for fee reductions)
- In re Mkt. Ctr. E. Retail Prop., Inc., 730 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 2013) (context on fee shifting and lodestar adjustments)