Finjan, Inc. v. ESET, LLC et al

Filing 1052

ORDER Denying Motion for Attorneys Fees [Doc. No. 1026 ]. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 11/21/2023. (anh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14

FINJAN LLC,

Case No.: 17-cv-183-CAB-BGS
Plaintiff,

15
16

v.

17

ESET, LLC, et al,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS FEES

Defendants.

18

[Doc. No. 1026]

19
20

Originally filed in 2016, this case was “exceptional” in many ways. However, the

21

Court declines to find it exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and grant an award of

22

attorney fees.

23

I.

INTRODUCTION

24

This case was heavily litigated by both parties in seven years of litigation. Finjan

25

filed this case against ESET, LLC and ESET, Spol. S.R.O. (collectively “ESET”) in 2016

26

alleging willful infringement of six patents related to complicated anti-malware source

27

code. An initial trial on five patents commenced in early March 2020. That trial was

28
1
17-cv-183-CAB-BGS

1

abruptly terminated due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Court declared a mistrial for

2

the public health and safety of the jury, witnesses, and litigants. [Doc. No. 783].

3

This case was tried again before this Court between August 28, 2023 and September

4

8, 2023 for eight days, in which Finjan asserted that the ESET entities infringed claims 1,

5

7, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (‘844), claims 9 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 6,

6

804,780 (‘780), and claim 24 of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 (‘086). ESET counterclaimed

7

alleging non-infringement, invalidity of the asserted patents, and other affirmative

8

defenses.

9

After eight days of trial, the jury returned its verdict that Finjan failed to establish

10

that ESET infringed any of the asserted patents. While this rendered ESET the prevailing

11

party in the litigation, the jury also found that ESET failed to establish any of its asserted

12

defenses. ESET now brings a motion for attorney fees of $9.7 million. For the reasons

13

asserted below, the Court DENIES ESET’s motion.

14

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

15

Reasonable attorney fees may be awarded to the prevailing party in a patent

16

infringement case only in “exceptional cases.” 35 U.S.C. § 285. A case is exceptional if it

17

stands out from others with respect to either the (1) substantive strength of a party’s

18

litigating position or (2) the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated. Octane

19

Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545, 554 (2014). “District courts

20

may determine whether a case is exceptional in the case-by-case exercise of their

21

discretion, considering the totality of the circumstances.” Id.

22

Parties seeking attorney fees have the burden of establishing the case is exceptional

23

by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. In determining whether to award fees, district

24

courts may consider a nonexclusive list of factors, including “‘frivolousness, motivation,

25

objective unreasonableness (both in the factual and legal components of the case) and the

26

need in particular circumstances to advance considerations of compensation and

27

deterrence.’” Id. at 554 n.6 (quoting Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 534 n.19

28

(1994)). There is no precise rule or formula for determining whether to award attorney’s
2
17-cv-183-CAB-BGS

1

fees, but instead equitable discretion should be exercised in light of the above

2

considerations. Id. At 554.

3

III.

DISCUSSION

4

ESET requests attorney fees in the amount of $9.7 million for the period following

5

the Court’s October 2017 claim construction order. In its motion, ESET argues this amount

6

is justified because Finjan (1) knew or should have known that its infringement theories

7

were “baseless”; (2) asserted “unserious” damages theories; and (3) engaged in trial

8

misconduct throughout discovery and both trials. [Doc. No. 1026-1]. The Court is not

9

convinced.

10

“To be objectively baseless, the patentee’s assertions—whether manifested in its

11

infringement allegations or its claim construction positions—must be such that no

12

reasonable litigant could reasonably expect success on the merits.” Taurus IP, LLC v.

13

DaimlerChrysler Corp., 726 F.3d 1306, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Dominant

14

Semiconductors Sdn. Bhd. V. OSRAM GmbH, 524 F.3d 1254, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2008))

15

(internal quotations omitted). “The strength of a party’s litigation position is what is

16

relevant to an exceptional case determination, not the correctness or success of that

17

position.” FireBlok IP Holdings, LLC v. Hilti, Inc., 855 F. App’x 735, 739 (Fed. Cir.

18

2021). “Fee awards are not to be used as a ‘penalty for failure to win a patent

19

infringement suit.’” Stone Basket Innovations, LLC v. Cook Medical LLC, 892 F.3d 1175,

20

1184 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

21

The Court does not find Finjan’s infringement or damages theories were baseless or

22

objectively unreasonable given the history of dispositive motions filed in this case. In

23

October 2016, ESET filed two motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which were

24

denied. [Doc. Nos. 105, 106]. In April 2019, both parties brought voluminous motions for

25

summary judgment. The Court denied nearly all those motions except as to the exclusion

26

of some of expert opinions and willful infringement. [Doc. Nos. 699, 720]. In August 2020,

27

after the mistrial, the parties filed renewed motions for summary judgment. The Court

28

granted ESET’s renewed motion as to indefiniteness, and judgment was entered in favor
3
17-cv-183-CAB-BGS

1

of ESET. [Doc. No. 875]. Finjan appealed that judgment to the Federal Circuit. The Federal

2

Circuit issued a mandate which reversed-in-part the Court’s October 2017 claim

3

construction order, vacated the Court’s grant of summary judgment, and remanded the case

4

for further proceedings. [Doc. No. 886]. Finally, after returning to this Court, ESET filed

5

another set of summary judgment motions in advance of the 2023 trial, which were

6

withdrawn and denied. [Doc. Nos. 928, 950].

7

In light of the denial of the motions to dismiss, the failure of ESET to prevail on

8

multiple motions for summary judgment, and the Federal Circuit’s mandate, ESET’s

9

argument that Finjan should have known of its “baseless” infringement theories since the
Regardless of whether Finjan’s

10

October 2017 claim construction is unpersuasive.

11

infringement theories shifted throughout the litigation, those theories withstood scrutiny

12

by both this Court and the Federal Circuit. Additionally, ESET’s argument that Finjan

13

dropped patents and claims on the eve of the 2023 trial is similarly unpersuasive, as it was

14

done at the Court’s suggestion for a more efficient trial.

15

Furthermore, Finjan’s damages theories were not “unserious” enough to render this

16

case exceptional pursuant to section 285. The Court assessed the damages theories and, as

17

ESET mentioned in its motion, “the Court permitted [Damages Expert Kevin Arst] a ‘do-

18

over’ on his damages opinions, so long as he could tie his revised opinion to Finjan’s prior

19

licenses.’” [Doc. No. 1026-1 at 18]. At the 2023 trial, Mr. Arst relied on the 2005 Licensing

20

Agreement between Finjan and Microsoft and the Georgia-Pacific factors to give an

21

opinion on damages. This is what the Court required of Finjan, and ESET has not

22

demonstrated Finjan’s damages theories were “unserious” by a preponderance of the

23

evidence. This case is not exceptional merely because Finjan’s theories did not prevail at

24

trial. See FireBlok IP Holdings, LLC, 855 F. App’x at 739.

25

Finally, ESET’s argument that Finjan engaged in exceptional trial misconduct is also

26

unconvincing. In its motion, ESET argues that former counsel for Finjan violated

27

protective orders during discovery. As with most discovery disputes, these violations were

28

addressed by the magistrate judge. ESET also argues this case should be considered
4
17-cv-183-CAB-BGS

1

exceptional because Finjan’s counsel and experts tried to “mislead and confuse the jury”

2

during the 2023 trial. [Doc. No. 1026-1 at 21]. The examples provided in ESET’s motion,

3

such as Finjan’s allegedly “fake” impeachment practices and “fictitious” expert opinions

4

[Doc. No. 1026-1 at 21], merely demonstrate Finjan’s ill-fated litigation strategy more than

5

intentional misconduct.1

6

IV.

CONCLUSION

7

Upon review of the totality of the circumstances, the Court does not find this case as

8

“exceptional” to warrant attorney fees under section 285. The parties fought each other for

9

seven years via voluminous motions for summary judgment, an appeal, and two trials. The

10

jury found in ESET’s favor on Finjan’s claims and in Finjan’s favor on ESET’s defenses

11

except the denial of infringement which ultimately made ESET the prevailing party. The

12

litigation was not however so one-sided or objectively unreasonable as to find it

13

exceptional and allow ESET to recover $9.7 million in fees. ESET’s motion is hereby

14

DENIED.

15
16

It is SO ORDERED.

17

Dated: November 21, 2023

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ESET also states that “Finjan’s counsel attempted to incite panic amongst the jury by suggesting
ESET’s witness could have jeopardized the health of the jury” when it “realized its infringement case
had collapsed.” [Doc. No. 1026-1 at 21-22]. While the Court was displeased with Finjan’s counsel’s
tactic to illustrate potential bias of a witness by invoking a COVID exposure issue in front of the jury,
the Court declines to find this litigation strategy was designed to provoke a mistrial because Finjan
assessed its case as failing.
1

5
17-cv-183-CAB-BGS