freal Foods LLC et al v. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. et al

Filing 356

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 300 MOTION to Declare this Case Exceptional and Award Attorneys' Fees. Signed by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 5/4/2020. (nmf)

Case 1:16-cv-00041-CFC Document 356 Filed 05/04/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 15188

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE
F'REAL FOODS, LLC and RICH
PRODUCTS CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 16-41-CFC
V.

HAMIL TON BEACH BRANDS,
INC. and HERSHEY CREAMERY
COMPANY,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before me is Plaintiffs' Motion to Declare This Case Exceptional
and Award Attorneys' Fees Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 (D.1. 300). Section 285 of
the Patent Act provides that "the court in exceptional cases may award reasonable
attorney fees to the prevailing party." 35 U.S.C. § 285. The Supreme Court has
held that "an 'exceptional' case is simply one that stands out from others with
respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigating position ( considering both
the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which
the case was litigated." Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572
U.S. 545, 554 (2014). District courts determine whether a case is exceptional in a

Case 1:16-cv-00041-CFC Document 356 Filed 05/04/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 15189

"case-by-case exercise of their discretion, considering the totality of the
circumstances." Id.
This case neither stands out from others with respect to the substantive
strength of Plaintiffs' litigating position nor with respect to Defendants' litigation
tactics.
As an initial matter, the jury's verdict was not an across-the-board win for
Plaintiffs. The jury did not find that the MIC2000 blender infringed U.S. Patent
No. 5,803,377. Nor did the jury find that either Defendant engaged in willful
infringement. During the trial, I granted (without objection from Plaintiffs)
Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law with respect to Plaintiffs'
claim of induced infringement of claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,520,662 (the #662
Patent). Trial Tr. at 1003 :20-25. Post-trial, I granted Defendants' motion for
judgment as a matter of law of noninfringement of claim 21 of the #662 Patent.
D.I. 355. There were also material factual disputes that needed to be resolved by
the jury. For example, Defendants characterized the patents' "splash shield" as
just the lid that goes on top of the cup while the contents of the cup are blended;
whereas Plaintiffs characterized the "splash shield" as the whole splash-shield
apparatus, including guide rods for the lid and weights that hold the lid down.
Although the jury ultimately agreed with Plaintiffs regarding what constituted the
"splash shield" and found in their favor, that result was by no means preordained.

2

Case 1:16-cv-00041-CFC Document 356 Filed 05/04/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 15190

Second, I disagree with Plaintiffs' assertion that it was "unreasonable and
unprincipled" for the Defendants to pursue certain "defenses and counterclaims
right up to trial, with scant evidence supporting them, despite years of fact
discovery, depositions, and expert engagement." D .I. 301 at 1. Would it have
been better if the case had been further narrowed before it was presented to the
jury? No doubt. But both sides are to blame in this regard; and, as I explained in
my May 1, 2020 Memorandum Opinion, Plaintiffs' counsel's conflation of parties
and liability theories infected the entire case, required Defendants to maintain the
divided infringement defenses they did, wasted scarce judicial resources, and
undoubtedly confused the jury. D.I. 354 at 4.
In sum, after considering the totality of the circumstances, I do not find that
this action was an "exceptional case" within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 such
that Plaintiffs would be entitled to attorneys' fees.
WHEREFORE, this Fourth day of May 2020, Plaintiffs' Motion to Declare
This Case Exceptional and Award Attorneys' Fees Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285

(D.I. 300) is DENIED.

3