Qorvo, Inc. v. Akoustis Technologies, Inc.
1:21-cv-01417
| D. Del. | Sep 9, 2024Background
- Qorvo, Inc. brought claims against Akoustis Technologies, Inc. alleging willful and malicious misappropriation of trade secrets, infringement of patents, and related claims.
- A jury found for Qorvo in May 2024 on trade secret and patent claims, awarding over $38 million in damages, including exemplary damages for willful conduct.
- Qorvo moved for attorneys' fees, seeking over $12.1 million for 15,540.4 hours of legal work, contending that the defendants’ misconduct and complex litigation justified the amount.
- Akoustis argued against the fee request, challenging both entitlement to and the reasonableness of the claimed attorneys’ fees on several grounds.
- The court conducted a detailed lodestar analysis, reviewed billing practices, and considered both parties’ conduct before and during the litigation.
- The court ultimately granted attorneys’ fees in part, applying specific reductions for non-compensable work, block billing, travel time, and administrative tasks, awarding a reduced total of $11,743,745.54.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discretion to Award Fees under DTSA/NCTSPA | Misappropriation was willful/malicious; Qorvo is prevailing; fees justified | No intent to harm; damages already large; exemplary damages adequate | Fees warranted due to jury finding of willful/malicious misappropriation |
| Fee Amount / Lodestar Method | Hours and rates reasonable; efforts made to exclude non-compensable time | Fees excessive; comparator cases support reduction; block billing improper | Qorvo’s hourly rates reasonable; some reductions applied |
| Work Preceding Trade Secret Claims | Early claims shared core facts; fees for related work should be included | Work pre-dates trade secret claims; should be excluded | Award for pre-Nov. 2022 period reduced by 10% for mixed/unclear bills |
| Block Billing, Travel Time, Clerical Work | Voluntary reductions already taken; staffing and travel justified | Block billing, overstaffing, and charging for travel/admin time improper | Additional reductions for block billing, travel time, clerical work |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (articulates standard for calculating and adjusting reasonable attorneys’ fees using the lodestar method)
- Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826 (2011) (emphasizes trial courts’ discretion and limits on meticulous fee accounting requirements)
- Bar-Mullin v. Browning, 108 N.C. App. 590 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993) (declares willful/malicious misappropriation constitutes harm for liability purposes)
- Loughner v. University of Pittsburgh, 260 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 2001) (attorney administrative work not compensable at attorney rates)