Linex Technologies, Inc. v. Hewett-Packard Company et al

Filing 413

ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ( 345 , 346 ) MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS FEES. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/15/2104. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

LINEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

5

Plaintiff,

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

ORDER REGARDING
BRIEFING SCHEDULE
FOR MOTIONS FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES

v.
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY; APPLE
COMPUTER INC.; ARUBA NETWORKS,
INC.; MERU NETWORKS, INC.; and
RUCKUS WIRELESS, INC.,

(Docket No. 345,
346)

Defendants.

10
11

No. C 13-159 CW

________________________________/

12
On May 20, 2014, the Court entered judgment in favor of
13
Defendants HP, Apple, Aruba, Meru, and Ruckus and against
14
Plaintiff Linex.

Docket No. 334.

On June 10, 2014, Aruba, Meru,

15
and Ruckus (collectively, the access point or AP manufacturers)
16
filed a motion seeking an award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 of all of
17
their attorneys’ fees.

Docket No. 345.

HP and Apple filed a

18
similar motion, but sought only attorneys’ fees associated with
19
the asserted claims that the Court found to be valid but not
20
infringed.

Docket No. 346.

Linex opposes both motions and argues

21
in the alternative that the issue of attorneys’ fees should be
22
deferred until the Federal Circuit decides the appeal of the
23
Court’s order.

On July 31, 2014, the Court held a hearing.

Based

24
on the papers and arguments of counsel, the Court GRANTS HP and
25
Apple’s motion and GRANTS the AP manufacturers’ motion in part.
26
/ /
27
/ /
28

BACKGROUND

1
2

In June 2007, Linex filed suit in the Eastern District of

3

Texas, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,322 (the

4

‘322 patent) against fifteen entities that were not sued here.

5

Linex Techs., Inc. v. Belkin Int’l, Case No. 2:07-cv-00222 JDL

6

(E.D. Tex. June 1, 2007) (the Texas case).

In the Texas case,

7
Linex based its infringement claims on the same 802.11n standard
8
9

invoked here.1

The Texas court issued a claim construction order,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

construing “spread spectrum signals” as “signals processed with

11

one or more codes that distributes each signal across the

12

available bandwidth.”

13

thereafter, Linex settled its claims with each of the defendants

14

Docket No. 235-16 at 22.

Shortly

for lump sum payments.

15
After the Texas ruling, Linex went back to the United States
16
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to seek reissues of some of
17
18

the continuation patents of the ‘322 patent.

The USPTO can

19

reissue a patent in accordance with an amended application when a

20

patent was erroneously deemed wholly or partly inoperative or

21

invalid, or because a patentee claimed more or less than he had a

22

right to claim in the patent.

23

35 U.S.C. § 251.

No new subject

matter may be introduced in the reissue application.

Id.

In June

24
25
26
1

27
28

The Wi-Alliance introduced the 802.11n WiFi certification
in 2007. Bratic Report ¶ 53. The standard was formally adopted
in 2009. Id.
2

1

2008,2 Linex filed an application for RE 42,219 (the ‘219 patent),

2

a reissue patent for “Multiple-input and multiple-ouput (MIMO)

3

spread spectrum system and method.”

4

March 2011.

5

RE 43,812 (the ‘812 patent), which had the same title as the ‘219

6

The ‘219 patent was issued in

Also in March 2011, Linex filed an application for

patent and covered similar subject matter.

The ‘812 patent issued

7
in November 2012.
8
9

In May 2011, Linex filed a petition at the International

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Trade Commission (ITC) requesting relief for Defendants’

11

infringement of the ‘322 and ‘219 patents (the ITC Investigation).

12

The ITC can issue an exclusion order halting imports and exports

13

of an infringing product, but cannot award compensatory damages.

14

At around the same time, Linex filed this patent infringement case

15
against Defendants in Delaware, seeking compensatory damages.

The

16
parties agreed to stay the litigation pending resolution of the
17
18
19
20

ITC Investigation.
During the ITC Investigation, the staff attorney issued an
opinion on claim construction, validity, infringement, and

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

2

Defendants point out that their products were on sale as of
2006. Bratic Report ¶ 40. The Wi-Alliance introduced the 802.11n
standard in 2007 and it was formally adopted in 2009. Id. ¶ 53.
By contrast, the ‘219 patent and ‘812 patent were issued in 2008
and 2011.

28
3

1

domestic industry regarding the ‘322 and ‘219 patents.3

The staff

2

attorney found that “spread spectrum signals” should be construed

3

to mean “signals corresponding to data which has been processed

4

with one or more codes that distributes each signal across a

5

bandwidth greater than the bandwidth required to carry the data.”

6

Docket No. 375, Ex. A at 17.

In other words, like this Court did

7
later, the staff attorney found that spread spectrum signals
8
9

resulted from the processing of data with codes to increase the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

bandwidth of the data signal.

11

opined that he did “not expect the evidence to show infringement

12

of the asserted claims of the ‘322 and ‘219 patents.”

13

The staff attorney also determined that there was no domestic

14

industry.

The staff attorney accordingly

Id. at 32.

Two business days after the staff attorney’s opinion

15
was published, Linex voluntarily dismissed the ITC action.
16
Upon the parties’ stipulation, the Delaware court lifted the
17
18

stay.

Docket No. 28.

The case was eventually transferred to this

19

district.

Docket No. 96.

After the ‘812 patent issued, Linex

20

added it to the suit.

21

withdrew a number of asserted claims, including all claims of the

22

‘322 patent.

After a settlement conference, Linex

See Docket No. 327.

23
24
25
26
27
28

3

The staff attorney’s position may or may not be adopted by
the ALJ in his or her initial determination. The initial
determination would then be reviewed by the ITC Commission. ITC
decisions are not necessarily binding on the district court.
Texas Instruments Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 851 F.2d 342,
343 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
4

1

On May 20, 2014, the Court construed the disputed claim terms

2

and entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants and against

3

Linex.

4

general categories: (a) “spread spectrum signals,” (b) “codes,”

5

(c) “combining” terms, and (d) “separating” terms.

6

The disputed claim terms could be grouped into four

(MSJ Order), 5.

Docket No. 333

The Court adopted constructions similar to

7
Linex’s proposals for “codes,” the “combining” terms, and the
8
9

“separating” terms, but adopted Defendants’ proposed construction

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

for “spread spectrum signals.”

11

the asserted claims containing the term “spread spectrum signals”

12

–- claims 121 and 131-132 of the ‘219 patent and claims 101-102 of

13

the ‘812 patent –- the Court found the claims to be valid as

14

Id. at 6, 11, 15, 19.

Regarding

distinct from the prior art, but not infringed by Defendants’

15
accused orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM)
16
products.

Id. at 29-33.

As for the remaining asserted claims not

17
18

containing “spread spectrum signals” but referring generally to

19

“codes” and “signals” -– claims 97 and 107-108 of the ‘219 patent

20

and claims 97-98 of the ‘812 patent -– the Court found that these

21

claims lacked the spread spectrum limitation distinguishing them

22

from the prior art, and so these claims were invalid.

23

Id. at 35.

The Court therefore entered judgment in favor of Defendants on all

24
asserted claims.
25
26

Defendants now seek an award of attorneys’ fees under 35

27

U.S.C. § 285.

HP and Apple argue that the case is exceptional

28

because this is the third time Linex has pressed the claims the
5

1

Court found to be valid but not infringed, despite indications of

2

their substantive weakness against the 802.11n standard.

3

manufacturers, who collectively incurred almost four million

4

dollars defending against Linex, seek reimbursement for all of

5

their attorneys’ fees.

6

The AP

LEGAL STANDARDS

7
Under 35 U.S.C. § 285, the court “in exceptional cases may
8
9

award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.”

In

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

several cases leading up to this year, the Federal Circuit

11

admonished that a district court should not award fees unless it

12

finds litigation-related misconduct that would independently be

13

sanctionable, or litigation that was both “brought in subjective

14

bad faith” and “objectively baseless.”

Brooks Furniture Mfg.,

15
Inc. v. Dutailier Int'l, Inc., 393 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir.
16
2005).

Examples of litigation-related misconduct include “fraud

17
18

or inequitable conduct in procuring the patent”; “vexatious or

19

unjustified litigation”; and “objectively baseless” arguments that

20

“no reasonable litigant could believe would succeed.”

21

LLC v. Google, Inc., 631 F.3d 1372, 1378 (2011).

22
23

Id.; iLOR,

This year, however, the United States Supreme Court reviewed
two fee claims and altered the standard for the determination

24
substantially.

The Supreme Court found the Brooks Furniture test

25
26

to be unnecessarily rigid and instead opted for a more “holistic,

27

equitable approach.”

Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health &

28

Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749, 1754 (2014).
6

The Court held that

1

an “‘exceptional’ case is simply one that stands out from others

2

with respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigating

3

position (considering both the governing law and the facts of the

4

case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated.”

5

Id. at 1756.

6

There is “no precise rule or formula” for this

determination and so the district court should consider the

7
totality of the circumstances.

Id.

Because the exceptional case

8
9

determination may be informed by the district court’s unique

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

insight into the manner in which the case was litigated, it is

11

within the sound discretion of the district court.

12

v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1744, 1748 (2014).

13
14

Highmark Inc.

DISCUSSION
As a preliminary matter, Linex’s request that the Court defer

15
consideration of the fees issue is without merit.

If this Court

16
decides the fees issue now, the Federal Circuit may consider the
17
18

overlapping summary judgment and fees issues together, saving

19

judicial resources.

20

(Fed. Cir. 2003) (opposing piecemeal appeals).

21
22
23

See Nystrom v. TREX Co., 339 F.3d 1347, 1350

Defendants contend that this case is exceptional based on
Linex’s assertion of the claims containing the “spread spectrum”
term against the OFDM technology practiced by Defendants.

Two

24
other fora, the Eastern District of Texas and the ITC, previously
25
26

decided against Linex, construing “spread spectrum” as requiring

27

“spreading” of the bandwidth of the data.

28

have known that it could not use the patent claims limited to
7

Linex therefore should

1

“spread spectrum” to capture devices practicing the distinct and

2

more complex OFDM technology.

3

press those patent claims against Defendants in the present suit.

4
5
6

Linex nevertheless continued to

Linex responds that Defendants overemphasize the strength and
importance of the two prior decisions.

Although the Texas court’s

construction of “spread spectrum signals” was almost identical to

7
this Court’s construction, Linex argues that the Texas court did
8
9

not emphasize the “unknown” quality of the data as this Court did.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Regarding the ITC action, the staff attorney’s opinion was not

11

final.

12

Texas defendants soon after that court’s claim construction, and

13

withdrew its ITC claims immediately after the staff attorney’s

14

Nevertheless, the fact that Linex settled with all of the

opinion was published, indicates that these opinions were more

15
important than Linex now argues.
16
Even though neither forum’s determination was binding on this
17
18

Court’s determination as res judicata, Linex was not free to

19

pursue another case targeting the same technology with impunity.

20

Patent litigation is a burdensome venture for all parties

21

involved.

22

before bringing suit.

23

Thus, plaintiffs must conduct careful investigation
See Lumen View Tech., LLC v.

Findthebest.com, Inc., 2014 WL 2440867, at *6 (S.D.N.Y.) (finding

24
the case to be “exceptional” because “the most basic pre-suit
25
26
27
28
8

1
2
3

investigation would have revealed” that the infringement
allegations had no merit).4
Linex should have known that its spread spectrum claims would

4

not succeed against OFDM technology.

5

patents, Donald Schilling, himself characterized spread spectrum

6

The inventor of Linex’s

in his publication as:

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

a means of transmission in which the signal occupies a
bandwidth in excess of the minimum necessary to send the
information; the band spread is accomplished by means of a
code which is independent of the data, and a synchronized
reception with the code at the receiver is used for
despreading and subsequent data recovery.

11
Docket No. 235-17 (Schilling Tutorial) at 2.

If Linex did not

12
13

know initially that its spread spectrum claims could not be

14

stretched to cover OFDM technology, it should have known after it

15

litigated those claims in Texas and in the ITC.

16

fora to adopt its overbroad definition of “spread spectrum

17

signals,” to no avail.

18
19

Linex urged two

Although Linex argues that it still did not know that those
claims were frivolous, its actions suggest otherwise.

In 2008,

20
after an unfavorable claim construction decision in Texas, Linex
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

returned to the USPTO to broaden the scope of its patents.
4

Linex

See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; cf. Molski v. Evergreen
Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007) (listing
factors of Ninth Circuit’s vexatious litigant standard, including
whether litigant had a history of bringing harassing and
duplicative suits, litigant’s motive for pursuing the litigation,
whether litigant had a good faith expectation of prevailing,
whether litigant caused unnecessary expense to the parties or
placed needless burden on the courts, and whether sanctions would
be necessary to protect the parties).
9

1

deleted the term “spread spectrum signals” from several of the

2

claims in the ‘219 patent.

3

patentee’s intent “broadly to cover spread spectrum processing of

4

all types within the conventional meaning of ‘spread spectrum’”).

5

In 2011, Linex did the same with the ‘812 patent.

6

See Docket No. 235-22 (stating

That Linex

chose to broaden certain claims of the ‘219 and ‘812 patents

7
suggests that it knew about the substantive weakness of its spread
8
9

spectrum claims.

Moreover, Schilling admitted that, in drafting

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

the reissue patents, he intended to cover systems that he did not

11

invent.

12

chance” and drafted claims that might cover “any spread spectrum

13

system,” including some he might not know about).

14

Schilling Depo., 257:6-21 (stating that he “took a

Because the

context of a spread spectrum system was integral to patentability,

15
this was improper.

MSJ Order at 22-29 (holding that the claims

16
lacking the “spread spectrum signals” limitation were invalid
17
18
19
20

because every limitation was disclosed by the Paulraj prior art
reference).
Linex next argues that, in spite of the three fora’s narrow

21

interpretation of spread spectrum technology, it had a reasonable

22

case for infringement.

23

In this case, Linex argued that the HT-

LTF, a preordained training field sent before the data signal, was

24
the “data” required by the Court’s construction to create a spread
25
26

spectrum signal.

Linex’s argument was contradicted by its own

27

infringement expert, who characterized the HT-LTF as “test and

28

control data” more analogous to a code, rather than “message
10

1

data.”

MSJ Order at 33.

Although Linex hypothesized that even

2

test and control data could be “data” under the patents-in-suit,

3

the Court rejected this theory because the specification makes

4

clear that “data” is what is intended to be communicated to the

5

recipient.

6

Id.

Further, even if the Texas court did not

emphasize that “data” is the content or message and is distinct

7
from a “code,” it did not need to do so because those are the
8
9

generally accepted meanings of the terms within the art, and

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

nothing in the patent suggests another meaning.

11

7-8; Schilling Tutorial at 2 (discussing a code as “independent of

12

the data”).

13

Court’s construction was weak.

14

See MSJ Order at

Accordingly, Linex’s infringement position under the

The AP manufacturers contend that Linex’s unreasonable expert

15
damages report is an alternative ground for finding the case
16
exceptional.

They argue that the unreasonableness of Linex’s

17
18

damages demand is an example of its allegedly abusive litigation

19

strategies.

20

26 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (district court’s finding that patentee’s bad

21

faith settlement tactics supported ruling that the case was

22

exceptional).

23

Eon-Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp, 653 F.3d 1314, 1324-

Because the record upon which a decision on damages

would be made was never fully developed, the Court cannot

24
determine whether Linex’s damages demand was unreasonable.

For

25
26
27

example, the Court cannot determine on this record whether the
patented feature drove demand of the entire product.

28
11

1

In sum, Linex knew or should have known that its spread

2

spectrum claims were meritless as asserted against OFDM

3

technology.

4

several fora’s decisions rejecting its litigation arguments, show

5

that Linex knew the limits of the spread spectrum technology that

6

Linex’s actions and admissions, considered alongside

was crucial to the novelty of its patents.

Linex exhibited “an

7
overall vexatious litigation strategy” by continuing to hold these
8
9

groundless claims over Defendants’ heads to increase potential

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

settlement amounts.

11

Ltd., 726 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2013) cert. denied, 134 S.

12

Ct. 1546 (2014) (affirming district court’s award of attorney’s

13

fees).

14

Monolithic Power Sys., Inc. v. O2 Micro Int'l

But “the appetite for licensing revenue cannot overpower a

litigant’s and its counsel’s obligation to file cases reasonably

15
based in law and fact and to litigate those cases in good faith.”
16
Eon-Net LP, 653 F.3d at 1328.

Because Linex repeatedly attempted

17
18

to broaden the reach of its patents to capture technology it knew

19

it did not invent, this case is exceptional.

20

attorneys’ fees on the spread spectrum claims is warranted.

21
22
23

An award of

Defendants concede that they have not provided detailed
descriptions of the billed time and tasks that can properly be
attributed to the spread spectrum claims.

Nor do they justify the

24
rates at which the attorneys billed.

Both are required under

25
26

Ninth Circuit case law.

Welch v. Metro Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d

27

942, 948 (9th Cir. 2007).

Because the Court has now determined

28

that only the fees fairly attributable to the spread spectrum
12

1

claims can be recovered, each Defendant is directed to compile an

2

accounting of fees limited to work on these claims, in sufficient

3

detail to satisfy the Ninth Circuit’s standard for fee awards.

4

Defendants’ counsel’s hourly rates must also be disclosed and

5

justified.

6

Defendants’ accounting of fees must be submitted no

later than fourteen days from the issuance of this order.

7
Plaintiff may respond seven days thereafter, addressing only the
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

amount of fees claimed.
that.

Defendants may reply seven days after

The matter will be decided on the papers.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 9/15/2014
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13