Case 4:18-cv-07152-JST Document 141 Filed 02/24/20 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`RIDEAPP, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LYFT, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case No. 18-cv-07152-JST
`
`
`ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
`MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
`
`Re: ECF No. 127
`
`Before the Court is Defendant Lyft, Inc.’s motion for attorney’s fees. ECF No. 127. The
`
`Court will deny the motion for the reasons discussed below.
`
`Lyft seeks fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which provides that: “The court in exceptional
`
`cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” This is a statutory exception to
`
`the “bedrock principle known as the ‘American Rule,’” that “[e]ach litigant pays his own
`
`attorney’s fees, win or lose, unless a statute or contract provides otherwise.” Hardt v. Reliance
`
`Standard Life Ins. Co., 560 U.S. 242, 253 (2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
`
`An “exceptional” case under Section 285:
`
`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. District courts may
`determine whether a case is “exceptional” in the case-by-case
`exercise of their discretion, considering the totality of the
`circumstances.
`
`Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545, 554 (2014). Courts may
`
`consider such factors as “frivolousness, motivation, objective unreasonableness (both in the
`
`factual and legal components of the case) and the need in particular circumstances to advance
`
`considerations of compensation and deterrence.” Id. at 554 n.6 (citation omitted). Thus, for
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07152-JST Document 141 Filed 02/24/20 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`example, “a case presenting either subjective bad faith or exceptionally meritless claims may
`
`sufficiently set itself apart from mine-run cases to warrant a fee award.” Id. at 555. Entitlement to
`
`fees must be demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 557-58.
`
`As the Court has previously explained, “application of the American Rule remains the
`
`well-established presumption even in patent cases, and this Court will not depart from it lightly.”
`
`EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 12-cv-01011-JST, 2014 WL 3726170, at *5
`
`(N.D. Cal. July 25, 2014). The Court does not find the circumstances of this case to warrant such
`
`a departure.
`
`Lyft’s primary argument is that RideApp should have re-evaluated its position and ended
`
`this litigation, at the latest, after the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) opined that the
`
`asserted claims were indefinite. However, unlike in other cases found to have been exceptional
`
`under Section 285, the legal determination in this case – which issued from the PTAB – was not
`
`controlling. Cf., e.g., Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1379-
`
`80 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that the plaintiff has a “responsibility to reassess its case in view of
`
`new controlling law,” and affirming fee award where plaintiff failed to do so after the Supreme
`
`Court decided Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014));
`
`Phigenix, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., No. 15-cv-01238-BLF, 2018 WL 3845998, at *6-7 (N.D. Cal.
`
`Aug. 13, 2018) (finding that the “tipping point” that rendered case exceptional was the plaintiff’s
`
`“unreasonable determination to forge ahead with prolonged litigation when it had no tenable
`
`theory of infringement” following an unfavorable summary judgment ruling on priority date).
`
`Patents are “presumed valid,” and “[t]he burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim
`
`thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity.” 35 U.S.C. § 282. Lyft does not dispute
`
`that the PTAB’s decisions are not binding on this Court, nor does it dispute that the PTAB has no
`
`jurisdiction to invalidate a patent based on indefiniteness. While the Court ultimately found the
`
`PTAB’s analysis persuasive, see ECF No. 117 at 15-16, 19, it does not find exceptional RideApp’s
`
`decision to continue this litigation following the PTAB’s non-dispositive ruling. Nor does it find
`
`RideApp’s litigation positions to have been so unreasonable as to make this case exceptional.
`
`The Court also does not find RideApp’s litigation conduct to warrant a fee award. While
`
`2
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07152-JST Document 141 Filed 02/24/20 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`the Court previously disapproved of some of RideApp’s conduct as “not conducive to the orderly
`
`progress of this case,” ECF No. 117 at 13 (citation omitted), “post-Octane decisions awarding
`
`fees have generally cited egregious behavior,” Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. Microstrategy, Inc.,
`
`No. 11-cv-06637-RS, 2015 WL 4940635, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2015). RideApp’s conduct,
`
`although “questionable,” does not, in this Court’s view, rise to the level required to render the case
`
`exceptional under Section 285. Id. (declining to award fees where the plaintiff was “most
`
`certainly not without fault for the long and arduous trajectory of this case” and “engaged in
`
`numerous questionable and overly aggressive litigation tactics”).
`
`Lyft’s motion for attorney’s fees is denied.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: February 24, 2020
`
`______________________________________
`JON S. TIGAR
`United States District Judge
`
`3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`