Background
Fa-Hsing Lu filed a patent infringement action against Hyper Bicycles, Inc. in September two thousand twenty. Three years later, summary judgment was entered in favor of Hyper Bicycles and affirmed on a prior appeal. Hyper Bicycles then moved for attorney fees under Section twenty-eight five of the Patent Act, arguing the case was frivolous and that Lu’s conduct caused unnecessary expenses. The district court agreed, finding the case exceptional and awarding fees for costs incurred after January three, two thousand twenty-two.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the district court’s determination for abuse of discretion, noting that the district court is better positioned to decide if a case is exceptional. The appellate court found the district court’s conclusion well-grounded because Lu did not prosecute his claim in good faith. Evidence showed Lu made four requests for extensions but never propounded written discovery, took depositions, or named expert witnesses. His summary judgment briefing was cursory, and he failed to submit a statement of disputed facts. Furthermore, his discovery responses revealed he had no knowledge of infringing products and no records identifying any such products from at least January three, two thousand twenty-two.
What it means going forward
This decision reinforces that patent plaintiffs must actively and in good faith prosecute their claims. Failure to conduct discovery, submit proper briefing, or possess evidence of infringement can lead to a finding of an exceptional case and an award of attorney fees to the prevailing defendant.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download