Mankes v. Vivid Seats Ltd.
822 F.3d 1302
Fed. Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiff Robert Mankes sued Vivid Seats and Fandango in Oct. 2013, alleging their Internet reservation systems, together with local venues, infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,477,503 (a method for coordinating local and remote inventory).
- Mankes admitted no single party performed all claim steps; his theory relied on "divided infringement" (attributing local venues’ steps to the defendants).
- The law on divided infringement was in flux during these proceedings due to the multi-stage Akamai/Limelight litigation and related Federal Circuit en banc decisions.
- The district court granted judgments on the pleadings for defendants in early 2015, applying the then-narrow Federal Circuit standards and concluding Mankes had not alleged sufficient attribution (agency, control, or joint enterprise).
- The Federal Circuit later issued Akamai IV, broadening circumstances for attributing others’ acts to a single actor; the panel vacated the district-court judgments and remanded for reconsideration under Akamai IV.
- The court affirmed denial of Vivid Seats’ fee motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285, concluding Mankes’s litigation position was reasonable given the unsettled state of the law at the time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether divided-infringement allegations suffice to state direct infringement under § 271(a) | Mankes: the defendants plus local venues together perform all claim steps; defendants condition participation/benefit so venue acts should be attributed | Defendants: plaintiffs failed to plead facts showing agency, control, or other attribution under then-governing precedent | Vacated judgments and remanded for reconsideration under the broader Akamai IV attribution standard |
| Waiver of direct-infringement theory | Mankes: did not waive direct-infringement claim; complaints encompassed it | Vivid Seats: Mankes told them he would not press direct infringement in an email, so he waived it | Court rejected waiver—no district-court finding, no prejudice, and no timely assertion of waiver by defendant |
| Whether to award attorney’s fees to Vivid Seats under § 285 | Vivid Seats: case was exceptional; fees warranted | Mankes: litigation was reasonable given unsettled law | Affirmed denial of fees—district court did not abuse discretion; also vacatur of merits leaves Vivid Seats non‑prevailing party |
| Appropriate remedy given intervening change in law (Akamai IV) | Mankes: new standard may permit attribution; merits should be revisited | Defendants: the pleadings fail even under new standard | Court vacated judgments and remanded for application of Akamai IV; allowed amendment and further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (en banc) (addressed divided-infringement and inducement theories)
- Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2111 (U.S. 2014) (Supreme Court rejecting independent inducement liability absent direct-infringement basis)
- Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (broadened attribution rules for divided infringement)
- BMC Res., Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (prior, narrower attribution precedent)
- Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (prior attribution framework)
- Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (U.S. 2014) (standard for awarding attorney's fees under § 285)