CAFC Says Weakness of Patent Owner's Litigation Position Warrants Attorney Fee Award

"claiming infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 10,499,091, titled "High-quality, Reduced Data Rate Streaming Video Production and Monitoring System." The district court ruled that the patent is directed to the abstract idea of "video storage display" under Alice Step one and that nothing transformed the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter at step two and granted Castle's request for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)."

"Castle also moved for attorney fees and the district court granted this as well, explaining that "while the '091 patent was presumptively valid, it was 'demonstrably weak on its face.'" The court also found that Hawk should have known its case was exceptionally weak and that its "boilerplate complaint" demonstrated that it failed to "to engage in reasonable pre-suit investigation." The court therefore found the case exceptional and awarded attorney fees from the time Castle filed its motion to dismiss onwards."

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's award of attorney fees to the accused infringer based on the substantive weakness of the patent owner's litigation position. Hawk Technology sued Castle Retail alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,499,091, which the district court held was directed to the abstract idea of "video storage display" under Alice Step One and lacked an inventive concept at Step Two, leading to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). The district court found the patent "demonstrably weak on its face," criticized Hawk's failure to conduct reasonable pre-suit investigation and its settlement conduct, and awarded fees from the filing of Castle's motion to dismiss. Hawk appealed the fee award and related procedural rulings.

Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law