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