Segan LLC v. Zynga Inc.
Filing
246
ORDER by Judge Vince Chhabria granting 191 Motion for Attorney Fees; granting in part and denying in part 195 Motion for Sanctions; finding as moot 210 Motion to Stay (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2015)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
SEGAN LLC,
Case No. 14-cv-01315-VC
Plaintiff,
8
v.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES; GRANTING IN
PART MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
9
10
ZYNGA INC,
Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
In the 1990's, Segan invented a system for people to browse the Internet. Today, Zynga
14
makes video games that people can play while on Facebook. People don't browse the Internet
15
while playing Zynga games on Facebook. But Segan sued Zynga for patent infringement. Segan
16
lost at summary judgment, because no reasonable juror could conclude that Zynga's games
17
infringe Segan's patent. Now there are two questions. First, is this an "exceptional case" within
18
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285, such that Segan should pay Zynga for its attorneys' fees? The
19
answer to that question is yes, and Segan is ordered to pay Zynga $1,188,773.93 to cover its fees.
20
Second, should the law firm of Blank Rome, which represented Segan in this case, be sanctioned
21
under Rule 11 for filing and pursuing a frivolous lawsuit? The answer to that question is also yes.
22
I.
23
In the 1990's, Marc Segan came up with an idea for how people could surf the Internet, and
24
how companies could draw Internet users to their websites. His idea was to allow Internet users to
25
obtain an "icon" (say, an animated image of a cowboy or a baseball player) and entice the users to
26
travel to designated websites with their icons. So for example, a person with a cowboy icon might
27
visit a designated website because the site offers "enhancements" to cowboy icons (such as
28
cowboy boots, or hats, or spurs). The person might click a button on the website, or correctly
1
answer a trivia question posed on the website, and his cowboy icon receives an enhancement as a
2
reward (for example, a cowboy hat appears on the animated cowboy's head). And hopefully while
3
the person is visiting the site with his cowboy icon, he might buy an actual product – perhaps real
4
cowboy boots, or perhaps a bottle of Cowboy™ Bourbon – to make the whole endeavor
5
worthwhile for the participating website.
6
In December 2000, Segan and his co-inventor, Gene Lewin, filed a patent application for
7
this invention. Six years later, the Patent and Trademark Office issued them U.S. Patent No.
8
7,054,928. The patent is titled, "system for viewing content over a network and method therefor."
9
The first paragraph of the background section states that the invention "generally relates to
techniques for exploring web sites over a global computer network (e.g., the Internet)." '928
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Patent, 1:17-19. "More particularly," the paragraph continues, "the present invention pertains to a
12
system for employing an agent, character symbol, representation or icon for exploring web sites
13
and for directing or providing users of the system with incentive to access certain sites." Id., 1:19-
14
23.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A more detailed explanation of the invention is given at columns 3 and 4 of the patent's
specification:
To become an authorized user of the inventive system, registration
with a system provider will be required. This is accomplished by a
user accessing a system provider web site whereupon the user will
be given the option of providing specific demographic data as well
as preference and interest data, e.g., hobbies, interests, etc. The user
will also be assigned or provided an opportunity to select a character
icon for use with the system. Of course, certain character icons may
suggest particular traits or demographic information of the selecting
user, in which case specification of user preferences may not be
required at all. . .
In the preferred embodiment, target sites desirous of providing
enhancement content for character icons in an effort to lure users to
the target sites will also be required to register with the service
provider, such as by paying a fee, etc. The service provider will
then provide the target sites with the necessary coding to offer
enhancement content that is compatible with the character icons.
The service provider may then notify user subscribers of the web
site addresses for the target subscribers such that the user
subscribers can use the target addresses to locate and acquire
available enhancements.
Id., 3:32-42, 3:64-4:7.
2
Segan accused Zynga of infringing Claim 1 of the patent,1 which claims the following
1
2
system:
3
a user device having a processor and comprising:
4
a browser program capable of being run on said processor for
viewing website pages;
5
a graphical user interface (GUI) application capable of being run on
said processor, containing a proprietary communication protocol and
providing a GUI for depicting a character icon; and
6
7
a unique identifier for identifying the user of the user device;
8
a service provider for maintaining a user record corresponding to
said user, for communication with said GUI application by means of
said proprietary communication protocol, for authorizing the GUI
application to depict the character icon, and for providing one or
more previously enabled character enhancements for the user's
character icon depicted in the authorized GUI application, wherein
said user record comprises identification of the user's character icon,
predetermined user preferences, and the one or more previously
enabled character enhancements; and
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
a target website for offering a new character enhancement for the
user's character icon, wherein the new character enhancement is
capable of being enabled in the user's record at the service provider
without requiring user interaction with the service provider, and
wherein the character enhancements are obtained per predefined
authorization rules from the service provider and/or the target
website in addition to the predetermined user preferences; and
14
15
16
17
wherein, when the user visits the target website using the browser
program, the target website uses the unique identifier on the user
device to access the user's record at the service provider without
requiring user interaction with the service provider, whereby any
character enhancement offered to the user is appropriate for the
user's character icon.
18
19
20
21
'928 Patent, 18:50-19:18.
22
The specification gives context to this claim language by identifying the three "objects" of
23
the invention: (1) "to provide an entertaining system and method of using the Internet to locate and
24
acquire user enhancements or upgrades to a character symbol or icon as well as special offers or
25
coupons incidental to the character icon, for use by the system user"; (2) "to provide for a novel
26
advertising technique to attract Internet users to advertiser web sites by offering desired user
27
28
1
Segan initially asserted other claims as well, but had dropped them by the time of claim
construction and summary judgment.
3
1
incentives such as enhancements or upgrades to a character icon"; and (3) "to provide a novel
2
educational, guiding and training system and method wherein character enhancements will be
3
accessible upon navigating the Internet and locating information and/or correctly answering
4
queries." Id., 2:1-15.
5
In other words, Segan invented a system whereby a person who might for some reason be
6
interested in using a character icon to browse the Internet is incented to visit particular "target
7
websites" from which the icon could receive "enhancements" from those websites.
8
9
II.
Zynga was founded in 2007. It is not in the business of finding ways for people to explore
the Internet. It is a social video game company. Zynga's first game was "Zynga Poker," which
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
people could play on an application on Facebook. Zynga Poker simulated a casino environment,
12
allowing people on Facebook to enter the casino and play poker at virtual tables, including with
13
their Facebook friends. Although Zynga Poker was launched on Facebook, now people can play it
14
on other platforms, including on Zynga's own website.
15
One of Zynga's most popular and successful games is FarmVille, which was launched on
16
Facebook in 2009, and which is now available on other platforms. Like the poker game,
17
FarmVille is a social network game. People play by tending to and managing an imaginary farm
18
that they see on the screen. For example, they plow land, grow crops, build barns, and raise
19
livestock. They can purchase "Farm Coins" with real money, or they can earn Farm Coins through
20
game play. And they can use the Farm Coins to make purchases within the game to build up their
21
farms. Players interact with other farmers who are their "neighbors," selling and buying livestock
22
or trees or bushels, or just helping each other out with their farms. The player begins by choosing
23
an avatar, i.e., an animated figure of his farmer. And the farmer is customizable. For example, the
24
player might be able to obtain a red shirt for his farmer on the video game. The player does not
25
browse the Internet with his farmer; he just plays FarmVille with his farmer.
26
27
28
III.
Segan sued Zynga for patent infringement, contending that FarmVille and numerous other
Zynga games, when played on Facebook, infringe the '928 patent and its "unique system and
4
1
method" for Internet browsing. 2:19-24. Segan lost the case. The Court granted summary
2
judgment for Zynga, concluding no reasonable juror could find infringement because, as a matter
3
of law, at least two claim limitations (and likely more) were not met.
4
The primary question now is whether Segan's infringement suit was so unreasonable that it
5
is an "exceptional case" within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would qualify Zynga for an
6
award of attorneys' fees. "An exceptional case is simply one that stands out from others with
7
respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigating position (considering both the governing
8
law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated." Octane
9
Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 1749, 1756 (2014)
(emphasis added). This case is indeed exceptional, and Segan is indeed required to pay Zynga's
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
fees, because the lawsuit was objectively baseless from the start. It is obvious that Claim 1 in the
12
'928 patent describes an invention very different from the one Zynga practices in games like
13
FarmVille. This is perhaps best illustrated by a claim construction position relating to the word
14
"access" that Segan took throughout most of the litigation.
15
Among other things, Claim 1 of the '928 patent identifies a "service provider" from which
16
the user obtains the character icon and which stores the user's information, and a "target website"
17
that people visit to get enhancements for their characters. Claim 1 states that the target website
18
uses a "unique identifier" on the user's device to "access" the user's record "at" the service
19
provider, "whereby any new character enhancement offered to the user is appropriate for the user's
20
character icon." In other words, with the invention described in the '928 patent, when someone is
21
browsing the Internet with his cowboy icon and goes to a target website, that website accesses the
22
user's record from the service provider so that the target website knows to offer the cowboy a pair
23
of boots (rather than, say, a baseball glove). So for there even to be a chance of infringement,
24
Facebook (the target web site) would need to access from Zynga (the service provider) the user
25
record of the person playing FarmVille, so that Facebook could offer an enhancement for that
26
person's FarmVille icon. But that doesn't happen, because that's not the way the Zynga-Facebook
27
system works. That is so for a variety of reasons, but one of the most obvious is that Facebook
28
does not "access" or "obtain" any user records for FarmVille players from Zynga.
5
1
To try to avoid this glaring problem, Segan proposed that when Claim 1 says that the target
2
website accesses the user record at the service provider, what the claim really means is that the
3
target website sends user information to the service provider. Specifically, Segan proposed that
4
the phrase "target website uses the unique identifier on the user device to access the user's record
5
at the service provider" should be construed as follows: "the target website communicates
6
information associated with the user to the service provider so that subsequent activity (offering a
7
new character enhancement) is consistent with information in the user's record and thus conducted
8
in a way suited to that user's particular character icon . . . ."
9
This was one of the main pillars on which Segan's infringement suit rested – the assertion
that when Facebook "communicates information . . . to the service provider," Facebook is
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
somehow "accessing" user records from Zynga. Segan proposed this construction even though
12
every time the verb "access" or "accessing" appears in the patent (and it appears many times), it is
13
used in the ordinary way (i.e., "to obtain" or "gain entry to"). Segan might as well have argued
14
that the sky is the ground. Even in the world of patent law, where lawyers and experts often take
15
great liberties with words, this proposed construction of "access" stands out as exceptional. It is
16
more lacking in merit than the patent plaintiff's proposed construction of the word "automatic" in
17
Lugus IP, LLC v. Volvo Car Corp., 2015 WL 1399175 (D.N.J. Mar. 26, 2015), which resulted in
18
an award of attorneys' fees based on the objective baselessness of the infringement claim alone,
19
without even considering the plaintiff's litigation conduct. Id. at *6. It is more unreasonable than
20
the plaintiff's proposed construction in Raylon, LLC v. Complus Data Innovations, Inc., 700 F.3d
21
1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). And it is far more egregious than post-Octane Fitness cases in which
22
courts have denied motions for attorneys' fees. See, e.g., EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Cisco
23
Sys. Inc., 2014 WL 3726170 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2014); Site Update Solutions, LLC v. Accor North
24
America, Inc., 2015 WL 581175 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2015); Unwired Planet v. Apple, No: 13-cv-
25
4134-VC, Dkt. 468 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2015).
26
In October 2014, before final claim construction charts were due under the local patent
27
rules, Zynga filed a motion to levy a bond against Segan, to protect Zynga's right to recover
28
attorneys' fees should the case eventually be deemed exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285. In its
6
1
opposition to that motion, Segan doubled down on its position that to "access" means to "send."
2
Segan insisted that Facebook "accesses" user records because "Zynga’s own engineer, Kyle
3
Saugier, confirmed that Facebook provides to Zynga a unique user identifier that results in that
4
specific user’s record being accessed and engaged-at the point where the user left off-in the
5
game." Opp. at 4 (Dkt. No. 88) (emphasis added). This argument – that "access" means
6
"provides" – didn't go very well for Segan at the hearing on the bond motion. So in its final claim
7
construction chart, Segan dropped its proposed construction of "access" and agreed that the verb
8
"access" means "obtain."
9
But then, to get around the fact that Facebook does not actually access a user's record from
Zynga (at least when "access" is used in any remotely understandable fashion), Segan came up
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
with a different way of tackling the same problem: it proposed, for the first time, to construe the
12
word "website" (of "target website") as "a set of related web pages, each page identified by a URL
13
and including its underlying code and all content presented by a browser when a user visits that
14
page." In other words, Segan's new infringement theory was that when a user plays FarmVille
15
while on Facebook, the FarmVille game becomes part of the "target website," and therefore when
16
Zynga is sending code and content to the user of the FarmVille game, the "target website" is
17
actually "accessing" the code and content (even though Facebook never gets it). As the discussion
18
in Section I illustrates, that's not what the '928 patent meant when it used the phrase "target
19
website." But even aside from that, as the Court explained in its claim construction and summary
20
judgment order, at least two other claim limitations were obviously not met as a matter of law. To
21
summarize the key points from the Court's claim construction order and order granting summary
22
judgment for Zynga:
23
Claim 1 of the '928 patent describes the invention as allowing the user's character to be
24
enhanced "without requiring user interaction with the service provider . . . ." '928
25
Patent, 19:15-16. But when someone plays FarmVille while on Facebook and seeks an
26
enhancement for his farmer (say, by getting the farmer a red shirt), it is undisputed that
27
the user "interacts" with Zynga. He sends a request directly to Zynga, and Zynga
28
responds to the request by providing the enhancement, without Facebook being
7
1
involved in the transaction. To try to get around this obvious problem, Segan proposed
2
that "without requiring user interaction with the service provider" should mean
3
"without the user having to take an action to leave the target website and visit a service
4
provider to take some action at that site." But there was no support for such a narrow
5
construction of "interacting" with the service provider; therefore, the Court construed
6
"interaction" in its plain and ordinary way, as some action or engagement between two
7
or more entities, which is precisely what happens between Zynga and a user playing a
8
Zynga game on Facebook. Therefore, in the accused system, the user does interact
9
with the service provider, and thus there is no infringement.
10
Claim 1 identifies as one element of the system "a target website for offering a new
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
character enhancement for the user's character icon." But Facebook does not offer the
12
farmer anything. To try to deal with that problem, Segan proposed that a "target
13
website for offering a new character enhancement" should mean "a target website
14
making a character enhancement known and available to a user." But making
15
something "known and available" is not what "offering" means, nor did the patent ever
16
use the word "offering" in that way. Nor, in any event, does Facebook even make
17
character enhancements "known and available" to people playing the FarmVille game.
18
Zynga, through the FarmVille game itself, makes the enhancements "known and
19
available" to the user.
20
Overall, it was obvious that the '928 patent's system for browsing the Internet with
21
character icons and getting enhancements from various websites did not cover the act of playing
22
games like FarmVille while on Facebook. From the beginning of the case, Segan's claim
23
construction positions and infringement theory were so unreasonable as to make this case
24
"exceptional" within the meaning of section 285, even without reference to Segan's litigation
25
conduct.2
26
2
27
28
However, it is worth noting that Segan's litigation conduct would further support an award of
attorneys' fees under section 285. Indeed, the Blank Rome attorney who appeared at the hearing
on the motion for attorneys' fees admitted he "cringed" at some of the conduct of his colleagues.
See Order Denying Motion to Compel, Dkt. 135 (Judge Spero denying Segan's motion to compel,
8
1
In light of the foregoing, the motion for attorneys' fees is granted. And the requested fee
2
amount of $1,188,773.93 is reasonable. Indeed, it is on the low side for a case like this,
3
particularly considering the high quality of the representation Zynga received. Segan argues that
4
Zynga has not adequately justified its fee request, but given the length of the litigation and the
5
difficulty Segan put Zynga through, the requested amount falls so squarely within the range of
6
reasonableness that the Supplemental Declaration of Sarah Stahnke describing these fees is more
7
than sufficient.
8
9
IV.
Zynga also asks the Court to sanction Blank Rome, the law firm representing Segan, under
Rule 11, and hold the firm responsible for Zynga's attorneys' fees for filing a frivolous complaint
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
against Zynga. Sanctions are warranted if (1) "the complaint is legally or factually baseless from
12
an objective perspective," and (2) the attorneys failed to conduct "a reasonable and competent
13
inquiry before signing and filing [the complaint]." Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 1127
14
(9th Cir. 2002). In the patent context, "a reasonable and competent inquiry" means, "at a
15
minimum, that an attorney interpret the asserted patent claims and compare the accused device
16
with those claims before filing a claim alleging infringement." Q-Pharma, Inc. v. Andrew Jergens
17
Co., 360 F.3d 1295, 1300-1301 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Antonious v. Spalding & Evenflo Co.,
18
275 F.3d 1066, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Importantly, the attorney's pre-filing interpretation of the
19
claims must be nonfrivolous. Q-Pharma, 360 F.3d at 1301.
20
Segan has waived the attorney work product privilege to allow the Court to conduct at least
21
a partial assessment of the quality of Blank Rome's pre-filing investigation. Although much of the
22
pre-filing work product that Segan submitted was heavily redacted, it appears Blank Rome at least
23
engaged in the activities one would expect of a patent plaintiff's lawyers before filing suit. But to
24
avoid sanctions, Segan's pre-filing interpretation of the claims must have been "reasonably
25
26
27
28
which it filed on Christmas Eve and in violation of numerous rules); Deposition of Jose Zagal,
Segan expert, Dkt. 167-02 (Segan's attorney instructing its expert not to answer – time and time
again – when Zynga's counsel asked the expert about the expert's factual investigation to support
his expert testimony and about the assumptions he was adopting as part of his expert opinion).
9
1
supported by the intrinsic record." Q-Pharma, 360 F.3d at 1301. While "[r]easonable minds can
2
differ as to claim construction positions, . . . there is a threshold below which a claim construction
3
is 'so unreasonable that no reasonable litigant could believe it would succeed,' and thus warrants
4
Rule 11 sanctions." Raylon, 700 F.3d at 1368 (quoting iLor, LLC v. Google, Inc., 631 F.3d 1372,
5
1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). For the reasons discussed in Section III, the claim construction position
6
taken by the Blank Rome attorneys fell below that threshold. This was not a case in which
7
attorneys investigated a potential claim on behalf of their client and concluded it had merit based
8
on partial information, only later to learn that their information was wrong. For example, there is
9
no indication the attorneys received bad information from their client. Nor is there an indication
that the attorneys lacked notice about how the accused products worked. This case was
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
objectively baseless from the start, and no amount of lawyer activity prior to filing suit could have
12
changed that.
13
"When a court imposes sanctions, the type and amount of the sanctions remain largely
14
within the discretion of the Court." Paciulan v. George, 38 F.Supp.2d 1128, 1144 (N.D. Cal.
15
1999) aff'd 229 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir. 2000). Zynga has requested an award of the full amount of its
16
attorneys' fees. This is a close question. Holding Blank Rome jointly and severally liable for the
17
fee award would arguably be appropriate given that the sanctionable conduct was the filing of a
18
frivolous complaint, which resulted in Zynga having to defend itself throughout a lengthy lawsuit.
19
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(4) ("The sanction may include . . . an order directing payment to the
20
movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses directly resulting from
21
the violation."); see also View Eng'g, Inc. v. Robotic Vision Sys., Inc., 208 F.3d 981, 986 (Fed. Cir.
22
2000) ("A patent suit can be an expensive proposition. Defending against baseless claims of
23
infringement subjects the alleged infringer to undue costs – precisely the scenario Rule 11
24
contemplates."). But three factors in this case weigh against holding Blank Rome jointly and
25
severally liable for the full amount of Zynga's attorneys' fees.
26
First, under Rule 11, a sanction "must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the
27
conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated." Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(4). The Court
28
believes that a sanction of $100,000, coupled with the reprimand that a sanctions award represents,
10
1
is sufficient to deter Blank Rome from bringing frivolous patent infringement suits in the future.
2
And the award (accompanied by this opinion) puts similarly-situated attorneys on notice of the
3
possibility that they could be held jointly and severally liable under Rule 11 for an entire section
4
285 fee award if they file such an objectively baseless patent infringement suit in the future.
5
Though a greater award could better ensure that Zynga is adequately reimbursed, "[t]he main
6
objective of the Rule is not to reward parties who are victimized by litigation; it is to deter
7
baseless filings and curb abuses." Bus. Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Commc'ns Enters., Inc., 498
8
U.S. 533, 553 (1991).
Second, even though the Blank Rome attorneys devised and put forth objectively baseless
10
claim construction and infringement positions, the record suggests they did not pursue the lawsuit
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
in bad faith or with an improper purpose. For example, several of the pre-filing communications
12
among Blank Rome attorneys are more suggestive of lawyers who come to believe in a ridiculous
13
argument than they are of lawyers who are preparing to file a lawsuit in bad faith. The apparent
14
absence of bad faith is a factor courts can and should consider when deciding how much to
15
sanction attorneys. See, e.g., Cox v. Deal, 2011 WL 3418397, at *5 (D.S.C. Aug. 3, 2011);
16
Brubaker v. City of Richmond, 943 F.2d 1363, 1387 (4th Cir. 1991).
17
Finally, because patent law is fast evolving, particularly with respect to the types of cases
18
that might subject patent lawyers and their clients to liability for the opposing side's attorneys'
19
fees, equity counsels against the full sanctions award Zynga seeks. For example, Blank Rome
20
brought this suit on Segan's behalf in July 2011, three years before the Supreme Court decided
21
Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 1749, 1756 (2014);
22
see also Raylon, 700 F.3d (involving Rule 11 sanctions and decided in 2012). Of course, this
23
doesn't change the fact that the lawsuit was just as baseless in 2011 as it is now, and that's why
24
Zynga is entitled to a full fee award against Segan under section 285. But the landscape is
25
changing, such that the attorneys had less notice in 2011 than they do today of their own potential
26
liability.
27
28
Accordingly, the Court finds that a sanction holding Blank Rome jointly and severally
liable, with Segan, for $100,000 worth of Zynga's section 285 fee award is equitable and
11
1
adequately serves the deterrent purpose of Rule 11. 3
2
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 10, 2015
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Zynga also moves to hold Blank Rome jointly and severally liable under 28 U.S.C. § 1927,
which is denied. "Establishing attorney misconduct under § 1927 implicates a higher level of
culpability than Rule 11," Raylon, 700 F.3d at 1371 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In any event, even if the
Court were to sanction Blank Rome under § 1927, it would not do so for any amount above the
$100,000 sanction it has already imposed under Rule 11.
12
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?