Western Holdings v. Summers

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER denying 14 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 9/30/2014. (blh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR COSTS AND
ATTORNEY’S FEES.

WESTERN HOLDINGS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID P. SUMMERS,

Case No. 2:13-CV-144 TS

Defendant.

District Judge Ted Stewart
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Costs and Attorney’s Fees. As
explained more fully below, the Court will deny Defendant’s Motion.
Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging infringement of patent rights in this Court on
February 22, 2013. After Defendant filed his Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), 12(b)(3), and 12(b)(6), Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its complaint
pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(i) on May 13, 2013. On July 7, 2014, Defendant filed this motion
claiming he is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and Rule 54(d)(1)-(2).
As a preliminary matter, it is unclear to the Court if this motion is timely. Rule
54(d)(2)(B)(i) requires a motion of attorney’s fees to be filed within 14 days after the entry of
judgment. This Motion was filed almost 14 months after Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its
Complaint under Rule 41(a)(1)(i).
Assuming, however, Defendant’s motion is timely, the Court will deny the Motion. The
Patent Act, specifically 35 U.S.C. § 285, grants the Court discretion to award reasonable
attorney’s fees in patent infringement cases that the Court deems to be “exceptional cases.” In

1

Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 1 the Supreme Court squarely addressed the
issue of what constitutes an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The Court found that the
Federal Circuit’s formulation of an exceptional case as defined in Brooks Furniture Mfg., Inc. v.
Dutailier Int’l, Inc. 2 was overly rigid and inconsistent with the statutory text of § 285. 3 The
Court abrogated Brooks and held that “an ‘exceptional’ case is simply one that stands out from
the 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.” 4 Further, the Court instructed district courts to “determine whether a case is
‘exceptional’ in the case-by-case exercise of their discretion, considering the totality of the
circumstances.” 5
In this case, there is nothing that would lead the Court to conclude that this case is
exceptional. Plaintiff filed its Complaint, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on Rules
12(b)(2), 12(b)(3), and 12(b)(6), and Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claim. There is very little
in the record and nothing in the record indicates that this case “stands out from the others.”
Therefore, the Court cannot find that this is an exceptional case and will deny Defendant’s
Motion.

1

134 S.Ct. 1749 (2014).

2

393 F.3d 1378 (2005).

3

Octane, 134 S.Ct. at 1755.

4

Id. at 1756.

5

Id.

2

It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendant David P. Summers’s Motion for Costs and Attorney’s Fees
(Docket No. 14) is DENIED.
DATED this 30th day of September, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

Ted Stewart
United States District Judge

3