Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v. O2Micro International Limited
Filing
502
ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING MPS' 486 MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND NON-TAXABLE COSTS. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2012)
1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
9
MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC.,
No. C 08-4567 CW
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING
MPS' MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES
AND NON-TAXABLE
COSTS
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
v.
02 MICRO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,
13
Defendant.
________________________________/
14
02 MICRO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,
15
16
17
18
19
20
Counterclaimant,
v.
MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC.;
ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC.; ASUSTEK
COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL AMERICA;
BENQ CORPORATION; AND BENQ AMERICA
CORP.,
Counterclaim-Defendants
__________________________________/
21
22
Plaintiffs and Counterclaim-Defendants Monolithic Power
23
Systems, Inc., Asustek Computer and ASUS Computer International
24
(together, MPS) have recalculated their attorneys' fees request in
25
accordance with the Court's January 17, 2012 Order.
26
Counterclaimant 02 Micro International Limited (02 Micro) has
27
28
filed a response and MPS has filed a reply.
Defendant and
The matter was taken
1
under submission on the papers.
2
by the parties, the Court approves MPS' recalculation of its
3
attorneys' fees and awards attorneys' fees in the amount of
4
$8,419,429 and non-taxable costs in the amount of $663,151.
5
Having read all the papers filed
BACKGROUND
6
In its January 17, 2012 Order Regarding Attorneys' Fees and
7
Non-Taxable Costs, the Court granted MPS' request for non-taxable
8
9
costs in the amount of $663,151 and ordered MPS to recalculate its
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
attorneys' fees request in accordance with the Court's
11
determination.
12
legal services of the Finnegan firm to $4,000,000 for work done
13
after March 2009, in accordance with a fee cap agreement between
14
Finnegan and MPS; (2) limited the recovery for fees corresponding
The Order (1) limited the recovery of fees for the
15
to block-billed time entries to twenty-five percent of those fees;
16
and (3) granted MPS leave to file an additional fee application
17
18
for work done in preparation of the fee application.
19
20
///
21
22
///
23
24
///
25
26
27
///
28
2
1
MPS recalculated its fee request as follows:
Fees generated by the Fish and
Richardson (FR) firm
Fees generated by the Latham
firm
Fees generated by the Finnegan
firm prior to the March 2009
fee cap agreement
Fees generated by the Finnegan
firm after the March 2009 fee
cap agreement
Fees generated in preparing
attorneys' fees application
Total Attorneys' Fees
$8,419,4291
10
Non-taxable costs
$
11
Total Fees and Non-taxable
Costs Request
$9,082,580
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9
12
13
$
281,162
$3,455,333
$
339,899
$4,000,000
$
343,035
663,151
MPS clarifies that all fees requested have been discounted by
14
ten percent, as was assumed by the Court in the January 17, 2012
15
16
Order.
MPS documents the recalculated amounts with new
17
spreadsheets of billing records for the Finnegan and Latham firms
18
adhering to the Court's instructions in the January 17, 2012
19
Order.
20
by the Finnegan firm and work performed by the Latham firm,
21
MPS has separated its billing records into work performed
including the work performed in preparing the fee application.
22
The billing records show that Finnegan provided $6,445,862 in
23
24
25
legal services after March 2009, but, in keeping with the Court's
directive, MPS is calculating reimbursement of $4,000,000.
MPS
26
1
27
28
MPS indicates that the subtotal is $8,423,129. This
appears to be an error; the Court calculates the subtotal to be
$8,419,429.
3
1
has also provided a separate category for all the block-billed
2
time entries it previously identified and, in keeping with the
3
Court's directive, has calculated reimbursement of twenty-five
4
percent of the total amount.
5
"reflect the specific rates assigned to each time keeper at the
6
MPS explains that the new reports
time each entry was made. (The rates on the original spreadsheet,
7
and therefore on the initial reports, reflected billing rates for
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
each particular individual that were the result of averaging the
individual's rates for 2009 and 2010)."
MPS also requests an award of interest at the legal rate on
12
the amount of $9,082,580 from March 3, 2011, the day the Court
13
granted its motion for attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
14
§ 285.
02 Micro objects on several grounds to MPS' re-calculation
15
of its fees.
16
DISCUSSION
17
18
19
I. Finnegan's Fees for Preparation of Fee Application
02 Micro objects to the $249,834 for services performed by
20
Finnegan in preparing the fee application.
21
this Court has held that recovery of work performed by Finnegan is
22
limited to the $4,000,000 fee cap negotiated between the parties
23
02 Micro argues that
on the ground that it would be inequitable to require 02 Micro to
24
pay MPS more in fees than MPS paid to Finnegan.
MPS responds that
25
26
Finnegan's fees for preparing the fee application were incurred
27
after dismissal of the 02 Micro infringement claims and, thus,
28
were not covered by the fee cap.
See Supplemental Declaration of
4
1
Finnegan partner, Scott Mosko, at ¶ 3.
2
has paid the $249,834 to Finnegan for its work on the fee
3
application.
4
allowed MPS to submit an additional request for fees incurred in
5
the preparation of its attorneys' fees application and did not
6
Id.
MPS also asserts that it
In its January 17, 2012 Order, the Court
limit the fee request to work performed by Latham.
Thus, an award
7
of these fees will not require 02 Micro to pay MPS more than MPS
8
9
has paid to Finnegan.
Therefore, 02 Micro's objection to the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
$249,834 for Finnegan's work in preparing the fee application is
11
overruled.
12
II. Different Billing Rates
13
14
02 Micro objects to the fact that MPS has altered its
attorneys' billing rates to "reflect the specific rate assigned to
15
each time keeper at the time each entry was made."
02 Micro
16
points out that the Court did not require MPS to revisit the issue
17
18
of reasonable attorney billing rates and only instructed MPS to
19
recalculate its fee request based on the hours allowed or
20
disallowed.
21
entries associated with MPS' recalculation be reduced by two
22
percent, which amounts to $69,107, or that MPS be required to
23
02 Micro suggests that, to remedy this, all billing
resubmit its billing entries using the previous rates.
24
MPS indicates that it used the actual rates in this fee
25
26
application "to provide the Court with an even more exact
27
accounting."
MPS explains that the net effect of using the actual
28
billing rates for the years 2009 and 2010, rather than the blended
5
1
rates that it used in its original fee application, was to reduce
2
the fees requested by $6,207.
3
The Court did not require MPS to change the rates billed by
4
each attorney.
5
is minor, it represents a more accurate picture of the attorneys'
6
However, because the change in the billing rates
rates and it results in a reduction of total fees requested, the
7
Court concludes that any further reduction is not warranted.
8
9
Therefore, 02 Micro's objection to the change in billing rates is
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
overruled.
11
III. Unreasonable Hours in Preparing Fee Application
12
02 Micro objects to the "unreasonably high number of hours"
13
expended in preparing the fee application and requests a twenty-
14
five percent reduction of fees requested for work performed by
15
Latham.2
This argument is without merit.
As acknowledged by 02
16
Micro, the Court denied its previous request for a reduction in
17
18
fees for preparing the fee application.
19
preparing the fee application were reasonable and necessary in
20
light of the fact that Latham and Finnegan were required to
21
review, analyze and summarize two years of extensive billing
22
records.
23
The fees incurred in
Therefore, 02 Micro's objection to the number of hours
expended in preparing the fee application is overruled.
24
25
26
27
28
2
As noted above, 02 Micro objects to all the fees requested
for the work performed by Finnegan.
6
1
IV. Accrual of Post-Judgment Interest
2
02 Micro argues that MPS is not entitled to an award of
3
interest from March 3, 2011, the day the Court granted MPS' motion
4
for attorneys' fees, because the fees had not been quantified at
5
that time.
6
Citing 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a), which provides that post-
judgment interest accrues from the date of entry of judgment, 02
7
Micro argues that interest cannot accrue until the Court enters
8
9
judgment as to the fee amount.
02 Micro also cites Special
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Devices, Inc. v. OEA, Inc., 269 F.3d 1340, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001),
11
for the proposition that there is no final judgment regarding a
12
fee award until the district court enters judgment as to the
13
amount of fees.
14
Special Devices is inapplicable here.
It addressed the
15
question of whether an unquantified award of attorneys' fees
16
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 is final for purposes of conferring
17
18
jurisdiction on the Federal Circuit.
19
address when interest begins to accrue on an award of attorneys'
20
fees.
21
22
23
Id. at 1343.
It did not
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a), interest is allowed on money
judgments in civil cases recovered in a district court accruing
"from the date of the entry of the judgment."
Courts have
24
interpreted this to mean that post-judgment interest is calculated
25
26
"from the date of the judgment establishing the right to the
27
award."
Takeda Chem. Indus. Ltd. v. Mylab Labs., Inc., 2007 WL
28
840368, *14 (S.D.N.Y.) (attorneys' fees award under § 285); Mathis
7
1
v. Spears, 857 F.2d 749, 769 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (same); Friend v.
2
Kolodzieczak, 72 F.3d 1386, 1391-92 (9th Cir. 1995) (on attorneys'
3
fee award under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, post-judgment interest accrues
4
from date entitlement to fees is secured, rather than from date
5
exact quantity of fees is set).
6
Thus, MPS is entitled to post-judgment interest on its award
7
of attorneys' fees and non-taxable costs accruing from March 3,
8
9
2011, the date the Court issued its order determining MPS'
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
entitlement to such an award.
This amount does not include the
11
$343,035 in attorneys' fees subsequently incurred in the
12
preparation of the fee application, which shall accrue interest
13
commencing on the date of this Order.
14
calculated at the legal rate as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a).
Interest is to be
15
V. 02 Micro's Objection to Non-taxable Costs
16
In its January 17, 2012 Order, the Court stated that 02 Micro
17
18
had not objected to MPS' request for non-taxable costs.
19
clarifies that it objected to non-taxable costs and cites to page
20
eleven in its opposition to MPS' May 5, 2011 submission
21
documenting fees and costs, in which 02 Micro stated, "The court
22
has previously ruled that discovery costs not solely related to
23
the ITC investigation are recoverable.
02 Micro
02 disagrees and preserves
24
its objection for appeal, but even without challenging that
25
26
decision, it is clear that fees related to work on issues that
27
were in no way part of this case should not be awarded."
28
also points to a footnote on the same page in which it stated, "02
8
02 Micro
1
also separately objects to any ITC Discovery costs incurred before
2
this Court entered the order allowing parties to use ITC discovery
3
in this case.
4
efforts could not have been considered to be related to this case.
5
Those costs total $341,100.05."
6
Until that order issued, the parties' discovery
The Court acknowledges that 02 Micro objects to MPS' request
7
for non-taxable costs, but overrules the objection.
8
VI. Payment of Taxable Costs
9
MPS indicates that 02 Micro has not paid the $339,315 that
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
was taxed as costs by the Court and requests that the Court order
12
02 Micro to pay this amount with interest accruing from March 3,
13
2011, the day the Court ordered 02 Micro to remit $339,315 in
14
taxable costs forthwith.
02 Micro does not respond to this
15
request.
Therefore, the Court orders 02 Micro immediately to pay
16
the $339,315 in costs previously taxed by the Court, with interest
17
18
at the legal rate accruing from March 3, 2011.
CONCLUSION
19
For the foregoing reasons, the Court awards attorneys' fees
20
21
in the amount of $8,419,429 and non-taxable costs in the amount of
22
23
///
24
///
25
26
///
27
28
9
1
$663,151, with interest accruing as set forth in this Order.
2
separate judgment shall be entered by the Clerk of the Court.
3
A
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
6
Dated: 5/3/2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
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?