`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`NETSOC, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`CHEGG INC., et al.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`USDC-SDNY
`DOCUMENT
`ELECTRONICALLY FILED
`DOC#:
`DATE FILED:
`
`
`
`
`18-CV-10262 (RA)
`
`18-CV-12267 (RA)
`
`
`
`
`
`18-CV-12250 (RA)
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM
`OPINION & ORDER
`
`
`NETSOC, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`OATH INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`NETSOC, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`QUORA, INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12267-RA Document 96 Filed 12/10/20 Page 2 of 16
`
`RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge:
`
`
`
`Plaintiff NetSoc, LLC filed patent infringement actions against Defendants Oath Inc.1 and
`
`Quora, Inc., which were consolidated at the parties’ request with similar cases pending before the
`
`Court against LinkedIn Corp. and Chegg Inc. See No. 18-CV-10262 (RA), Dkt. 35.2 The claims
`
`involved U.S. Patent No. 9,978,107 (the “‘107 Patent”), entitled “Method and System for Establishing
`
`and Using a Social Network to Facilitate People in Life Issues.”
`
`Other than the instant motion, all other issues in this consolidated case have been resolved.
`
`Claims against Quora and Linkedin were transferred to the Northern District of California. See Dkt.
`
`101; see also NetSoc, LLC v. LinkedIn Corporation, No. 19-CV-12215 (RA) at Dkt. 73. The actions
`
`against Oath and Chegg were dismissed on collateral estoppel grounds. See Dkt. 111; see also No. 18-
`
`CV-12267 (RA) at Dkt. 92. Remaining for resolution are Defendants Oath and Quora’s (together,
`
`“Defendants”) motions for attorneys’ fees and Oath’s related motion to seal in part its filings in support
`
`of its motion for attorneys’ fees. Dkt. 89. For the following reasons, the motion to seal is denied, and
`
`the motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 is granted with modification.
`
`BACKGROUND
`Plaintiff NetSoc, LLC filed separate actions against Defendants Oath Inc. and Quora, Inc.
`
`alleging infringement of the ‘107 Patent. See First Am. Oath Compl., No. 18-CV-12267 (RA), Dkt. 22,
`
`at 1; NetSoc, LLC v. Quora, Inc., No. 18-CV-12250 (RA), Dkt. 5, at 1 (Quora Compl.); ‘107 Patent, No.
`
`18-CV-12267 (RA), Dkt. 1-1. On March 25, 2019, NetSoc’s claims against Oath and Quora were
`
`consolidated at the parties’ request with similar cases against Chegg and Linkedin, all asserting
`
`
`1 NetSoc originally sued Yahoo! Inc. On July 29, 2019, by stipulation of the parties, this Court amended the case caption to
`reflect the substitution of Oath Inc. for Yahoo! Inc. in this case. See No. 18-CV-10262 (RA), Dkt. 69. This Opinion refers
`throughout to “Oath.”
`2 All docket references in this Opinion refer to the consolidated docket, No. 18-CV-10262 (RA), unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12267-RA Document 96 Filed 12/10/20 Page 3 of 16
`
`infringement of the ‘107 Patent. See Dkt. 35. Only Oath and Quora now move for attorneys’ fees;
`
`Chegg and LinkedIn do not.
`
`NetSoc’s First Amended Complaint against Oath and Complaint against Quora both contain a
`
`chart comparing what is labeled “Claim 1” of the ‘107 Patent to Defendants’ websites and descriptions
`
`of their services. See First Am. Oath Compl. ¶ 10; Quora Compl. ¶ 10. These charts were intended to
`
`demonstrate the alleged infringement. However, Claim 1 as alleged in the Complaints does not
`
`accurately quote Claim 1 of the ‘107 Patent. Though the claims charted in the Complaints deal with
`
`similar subject matter to Claim 1 of the ‘107 Patent, they are materially different, as shown in the table
`
`below:
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 1 (from Oath Complaint)
`A method for establishing a social
`network, the network comprising:
`
`maintaining a list comprising a plurality of
`participants, wherein each participant in
`the plurality of participants corresponds to
`one or more individuals, wherein the list
`also includes information associated with
`at least one of each participant or the one
`or more individuals that correspond to each
`participant;
`presenting a user with a plurality of
`categories from which the user may
`make a selection of a category from the
`plurality of categories;
`receiving the selection of the category by
`the user;
`in conjunction with the selection of the
`category, receiving an electronic
`communication from the user for an
`unidentified respondent, wherein the
`
`Claim 1 (from ‘107 Patent)
`A method for establishing a social
`network, the method being implemented
`on a network computer system and
`comprising:
`maintaining a list comprising a plurality
`of participants, wherein each participant
`in the plurality of participants
`corresponds to one or more individuals,
`wherein the list also includes information
`associated with at least one of each
`participant or the one or more individuals
`that correspond to each participant;
`presenting a user with an interface from
`which the user makes a selection of a
`category from a plurality of categories;
`
`in response to receiving the selection of
`the category by the user,
`displaying, for the user, some of the
`information associated with each of
`multiple participants from the plurality of
`participants which match the selection of
`the category by the user, while shielding
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12267-RA Document 96 Filed 12/10/20 Page 4 of 16
`
`contact information associated with each
`of the multiple participants;
`wherein displaying some of the
`information associated with each of the
`multiple participants is based at least in
`part on a rating of individual participants
`in the plurality of participants;
`
`enabling the user to send an inquiry
`message to one or more of the multiple
`participants, while shielding the contact
`information from the user, the contact
`information including any messaging
`identifier that is associated with each of
`the one or more participants;
`tracking a response time of each of the
`one or more participants who received
`the message from the user; and
`
`updating the rating associated with each
`of the one or more participants based at
`least in part on the tracked response time.
`
`
`
`electronic communication contains an
`inquiry of the user;
`after receiving the selection of the category
`by the user, selecting one or more
`participants from the list to receive the
`electronic communication, wherein
`selecting is based at least in part on the
`selection of the category or the information
`associated with at least one of each
`participant or the one or more
`individuals that correspond to each
`participant;
`sending the inquiry to the selected one or
`more participants;
`
`receiving a response to the inquiry from
`the selected one or more participants, the
`response from each of the one or more
`participants including biographical
`information about that participant;
`publishing at least a portion of the
`response from each of the selected one or
`more participants for other users to view,
`wherein publishing is performed without
`identifying the user but includes providing
`biographical information about the
`participant who provided the response;
`tracking feedback for each of the selected
`one or more participants based at least in
`part on the published portion of the
`response, including determining a rating
`from the user for at least one of the
`selected one or more participants.
`
`
`
`
`On March 25 and March 26, 2019, respectively, Quora and Oath moved to dismiss the actions
`
`against them, arguing that the discrepancy between the claims of the ‘107 Patent and the claims as alleged
`
`in NetSoc’s complaint made it impossible to defend themselves. See Oath Mot. to Dismiss, No. 18-CV-
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12267-RA Document 96 Filed 12/10/20 Page 5 of 16
`
`12267 (RA), Dkt. 28, at 16–19 (“NetSoc has failed to allege how Oath allegedly infringes the ‘107 patent
`
`because all the facts relating to Oath’s infringement are provided as purported evidence of satisfying
`
`language that is not even found in the ‘107 patent’s claims.”); Quora Mot. to Dismiss, No. 18-CV-12250
`
`(RA), Dkt. 22, at 16–19 (“[T]he claim language provided in Paragraph 10 [of NetSoc’s complaint] is not
`
`the language that claim 1 of the ‘107 patent actually recites.”). Both argued alternative grounds for
`
`dismissal, including that the ‘107 Patent’s subject matter was too abstract to be patentable. See Quora
`
`Mot. to Dismiss at 7–13; Oath Mot. to Dismiss at 8–14.
`
`NetSoc’s oppositions to the motions to dismiss did not address the contention that the language
`
`attributed to the ‘107 Patent in its complaints differed from the actual language of the ‘107 Patent’s
`
`claims. Rather, NetSoc’s response to Oath’s motion to dismiss repeatedly refers to the “embedded,
`
`detailed infringement chart” as demonstrating that the claim could survive a motion to dismiss. See Pl.
`
`Opp’n to Oath Mot. to Dismiss, No. 18-CV-12267 (RA), Dkt. 33, at 9, 14, 15. In their reply briefing,
`
`Oath and Quora both reiterated that NetSoc had alleged infringement of patent claims that did not exist
`
`in the ‘107 Patent. See Quora Repl., No. 18-CV-12250 (RA), Dkt. 43, at 1 (“[T]he Complaint identifies
`
`a claim that does not exist and Plaintiff does not address this fundamental flaw.”); Oath Repl., No. 18-
`
`CV-12267 (RA), Dkt. 38, at 1 (“Indeed, the Amended Complaint identifies a claim that does not exist.”).
`
`On July 8, 2019, over three months after Defendants filed their motions to dismiss, Plaintiff’s
`
`counsel William Ramey admitted for the first time to counsel for Oath and Quora that the charts in the
`
`original complaints were incorrect. He acknowledged via email that the charts in fact identified claims
`
`from U.S. Patent No. 9,218,591 (the “‘591 Patent”), not the ‘107 Patent. See Dkt. 91 Ex. 2 (email from
`
`William Ramey to counsel for Oath stating that “our charts were for the ‘591 patent not the ‘107 patent.
`
`The Complaint listed the wrong patent number but the correct chart.”); Dkt. 93 Ex. 2 (email from William
`
`Ramey to counsel for Quora stating that “our complaint charted the correct claim language but
`
`misidentified the patent. [W]e listed the related ‘107 patent when it should have been the ‘591 patent”).
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12267-RA Document 96 Filed 12/10/20 Page 6 of 16
`
`After revealing this error, NetSoc filed amended complaints against Oath and Quora on July 9, removing
`
`all references to the ‘107 Patent and alleging only infringement of the ‘591 Patent. See First Am. Quora
`
`Compl., No. 18-CV-12250 (RA), Dkt. 49; Second Am. Oath Compl., Dkt. 59. On September 3, 2019,
`
`this Court signed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice as to Plaintiff’s infringement claims under the
`
`‘107 Patent and permitted the filing of the Amended Complaints asserting claims under the ‘591 Patent.
`
`See Dkt. 82; No. 18-CV-12250 (RA), Dkt. 65. Defendants reserved the right to move for attorneys’ fees
`
`related to the ‘107 Patent claims, see Dkt. 68, and the Court set the filing schedule for this attorneys’ fee
`
`motion. See Dkt. 74.
`
`On September 13, 2019, Oath moved for attorneys’ fees incurred from the inception of the case
`
`in November 2018 through the amendment of the Complaints in July 2019, and in the alternative, for
`
`fees incurred after its initial Motion to Dismiss in March 2019 through July 2019. See Oath Fees Mot.,
`
`Dkt. 92, at 21. Oath also filed a letter motion seeking to seal documents supporting the attorneys’ fees
`
`motion on the same day. See Dkt. 89. Quora join the attorneys’ fees motion. Quora Joinder Mot., Dkt.
`
`93, at 5.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Defendants argue that attorneys’ fees are justified under several theories. Because Defendants
`
`are entitled to attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, allowing the Court to grant attorneys’ fees to a
`
`prevailing party in “exceptional cases," the Court will not discuss awarding fees under Rule 11(c)(3), 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1927, the Court’s inherent power, or Rule 41(d), the alternative grounds advanced by
`
`Defendants.
`
`I. Defendant Oath is Not Entitled to Seal Its Motion for Attorneys’ Fees
`As a preliminary matter, this Court must determine whether Defendant Oath’s motion for
`
`attorneys’ fees may remain under seal. Oath’s counsel, Duane Morris LLP, filed the documentation
`
`supporting its attorneys’ fee request under seal. See Dkt. 89. Counsel for Oath contends this
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12267-RA Document 96 Filed 12/10/20 Page 7 of 16
`
`documentation should remain under seal because Oath’s rates are the product of a “confidential RFP
`
`process” which “would make available to the public the confidential legal strategy of Oath’s counsel.”
`
`Id. Although NetSoc did not directly oppose sealing the records in this case, it did note that “[Duane
`
`Morris partner Allison] Hutton provides no description of the work performed for the hours billed” in
`
`this matter. See Pl. Sanctions Opp’n, Dkt. 95, at 11.
`
`There is a “presumption of access” to “judicial documents” filed with a court. See Lugosch v.
`
`Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006). Before this presumption attaches, “a
`
`court must first conclude that the documents at issue are indeed ‘judicial documents.’” Id. To be a
`
`“judicial document, ‘the item filed must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and
`
`useful in the judicial process.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995)
`
`(“Amodeo I”)). If found to be a “judicial document,” the court “must determine the weight” of the
`
`presumption of access, based on factors such as “the role of the material at issue in the exercise of
`
`Article III judicial power and the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal
`
`courts.” Id. (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Amodeo II”)).
`
`“Finally, after determining the weight of the presumption of access, the court must ‘balance competing
`
`considerations against it.’” Id. (quoting Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1050).
`
`Counsel for Oath does not contend that the documents supporting the fee request are not
`
`“judicial documents,” arguing instead that the “presumption of disclosure is outweighed by other
`
`interests.” Dkt. 89. Such an interest includes the privacy of an interested party. See Lugosch, 435
`
`F.3d at 120.
`
`Weighing against sealing these documents is their critical nature to the motion for attorneys’
`
`fees. In order to evaluate whether Duane Morris attorneys expended a “reasonable number of hours”
`
`and charged a “reasonable hourly rate,” Fertitta v. Knoedler Gallery, LLC, No. 14-CV-2259 (JPO),
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12267-RA Document 96 Filed 12/10/20 Page 8 of 16
`
`2018 WL 4961454, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2018) (quoting Millea v. Metro-North R.R. Co., 658 F.3d
`
`154, 166 (2d Cir. 2011)), this Court must review the materials submitted under seal by Oath’s counsel.
`
`This is not a case where the Court considers the documents for which seal is requested “immaterial to
`
`the motion[].” Compare Gosmile, Inc. v. Levine, No. 10 CIV. 8663 PKC, 2012 WL 1382557, at *1
`
`(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2012) (email chains discussing a product launch “have no bearing on the . . .
`
`[motion] for attorney’s fees”).
`
`Oath’s counsel contends that other courts in this Circuit have sealed records “under similar
`
`circumstances.” Dkt. 89 at 2 (citing LCS Grp. LLC v. Shire LLC, 383 F. Supp. 3d 274, 278 (S.D.N.Y.
`
`2019), and Andrews v. Blick Art Materials, LLC, 286 F. Supp. 365, 386 (E.D.N.Y. 2017)). However,
`
`there are key differences between this case and the sealing of attorneys’ fee applications in both LCS
`
`Group and Andrews. In LCS Group, only “certain redactions” to the fee request were made. 383 F.
`
`Supp. 3d at 277. Despite sealing part of the submissions, the Court in LCS Group was able to
`
`extensively analyze both the hourly rates and time billed by counsel. See id. at 280-81. Oath’s
`submission, by contrast, seeks to redact all documentation containing its attorneys’ hourly rates and
`
`hours worked.
`
`Andrews involved judicial approval of a quasi-class action settlement. 286 F. Supp. at 369.
`
`The parties agreed to seal the documents, and the court concluded that because the settlement “more
`
`closely resembles an individual settlement than a class settlement,” sealing of fees was appropriate
`
`given that “[t]he weight afforded to the presumption of public access is, accordingly, lower than it
`
`ordinarily would be.” Id. at 386-87. Here, however, parties have not settled and attorneys’ fees are to
`be imposed by the Court rather than voluntarily agreed to as a condition of settlement. The weight
`
`afforded to the presumption of public access is thus higher here than it was in Andrews. Cf. King
`
`Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., No. 04-CV-5540 (DGT), 2010 WL 3924689, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28,
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12267-RA Document 96 Filed 12/10/20 Page 9 of 16
`
`2010) (declining to seal documents relevant to a determination that a case was “exceptional” under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 285 because “the briefing in question concerns a substantive adjudication that will determine
`
`liability for attorneys' fees, which are often quite significant in patent infringement cases”).
`
`Because this Court must refer to the materials for which seal is requested in order to determine
`
`the fees NetSoc must pay to Oath, the privacy concerns raised by Oath and its counsel do not outweigh
`
`the presumption of public access to these records. The motion to seal these documents is therefore
`
`denied.
`
`II. Reduced Attorneys’ Fees are Awarded Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285
`
`Defendants argue that attorneys’ fees should be awarded under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which allows
`
`the court to award “reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party” in “exceptional cases.” Here, the
`
`Court finds that (1) this is an exceptional case, (2) Defendants are the “prevailing parties,” and (3) the
`
`fees they seek are—with some amendment—reasonable. The Court thus grants attorneys’ fees under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 285.
`
`A. This is an Exceptional Case
` The Supreme Court has defined an “exceptional case” as “simply one that stands out from others
`
`including with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position . . . or the unreasonable
`
`manner in which the case was litigated.” Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S.
`
`545, 554 (2014). Courts should determine what is an “exceptional” case “in the case-by-case exercise of
`
`their discretion, considering the totality of the circumstances.” Id. For the reasons that follow, the Court
`
`finds this case is “exceptional” and awards attorneys’ fees.
`
`The Supreme Court provided a “nonexclusive” list of factors courts could consider in
`
`determining an “exceptional” case under § 285, including “frivolousness, motivation, objective
`
`unreasonableness (both in the factual and legal components of the case) and the need in particular
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12267-RA Document 96 Filed 12/10/20 Page 10 of 16
`
`circumstances to advance considerations of compensation and deterrence.” Id. at 554 n.6 (quoting
`
`Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994)).
`
`Defendants claim that this case is exceptional because “from the outset” it was clear that the ‘107
`
`Patent contained unpatentable subject matter. Oath Sanctions Mot. 17. It is true that “exceptionally
`
`weak arguments undoubtedly serve to make a case ‘exceptional.’” Advanced Video Techs. LLC v. HTC
`
`Corp., No. 11-CV-6604 (CM), 2015 WL 7621483, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2015), aff’d, 677 F. App’x
`
`684 (Fed Cir. 2017). This assertion, however, is made with the benefit of hindsight. The Northern
`
`District of Texas ultimately held that the ‘107 Patent contained unpatentable subject matter, but that
`
`decision came after NetSoc amended its complaints against Oath and Quora to claim infringement of the
`
`‘591 Patent. See NetSoc LLC v. Match Group, Inc., 18-CV-01809-N, 2019 WL 3304704, at *3 (N.D.
`
`Tex. Jul. 22, 2019) (invalidating the ‘107 Patent). Though the decision in the Northern District of Texas
`
`is some indication that the “substantive strength” of NetSoc’s “litigating position” was weak, Octane
`
`Fitness, 572 U.S. at 554, this is but one factor in the inquiry and does not by itself make the case
`
`“exceptional.”
`
`The most significant factor suggesting that this case is “exceptional” is that Plaintiff ignored the
`
`deficiency in its pleading of the ‘107 Patent claims for approximately three months after being informed
`
`of the error. This alone makes this case “stand out” from others. The Court agrees that it is objectively
`
`unreasonable to maintain the incorrect patent claims once the error was brought to Plaintiff’s attention
`
`in the motion to dismiss. See Oath Mot. to Dismiss, No. 18-CV-12267 (RA), Dkt. 28, at 16–19. A
`
`cursory examination of Claim 1 of the ‘107 Patent compared with the claims listed in NetSoc’s
`
`complaints reveals that the language of the claims as filed is not an accurate recitation of the language
`
`of the claims in the patent, and the fact that Defendants pointed out such a glaring mistake in a pleading
`
`should have put counsel on notice of this error.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12267-RA Document 96 Filed 12/10/20 Page 11 of 16
`
`NetSoc’s explanations for making this mistake in the pleadings are inconsistent. Counsel first
`
`argues that the “mistake was not that the case was filed, rather it was that the ‘591 patent was not
`
`included, as was Plaintiff’s initial plan.” Pl. Sanctions Opp’n at 5 (citing Declaration of William P.
`
`Ramey, III, Dkt. 95 Ex. 2 ¶ 15). Yet Plaintiff also contends that “[t]here was no ‘error’ in only suing on
`
`the claims of the ‘107 patent, rather it was a litigation decision” based on an ongoing case construing the
`
`‘107 Patent in the Northern District of Texas. Id. NetSoc also argues that it only brought claims of
`
`infringement under the ‘107 Patent “for reasons of efficiency.” Id. at 7. Finally, NetSoc claims that
`
`“[b]ecause of claim construction proceedings in another matter construing the claims of the ‘107 patent,
`
`NetSoc decided to assert the ‘591 patent against Defendant Oath and Quora.” Id. at 10–11.
`
`None of these arguments address the fact that a reasonable investigation of the claim charts in
`
`NetSoc’s complaints would reveal that they were distinct from the language of the actual ‘107 Patent, or
`
`explain why NetSoc did not at least check its complaints against the language of the ‘107 Patent once
`
`informed that they contained substantive errors. Nor do they address the argument that counsel was on
`
`notice from Quora and Oath’s motions to dismiss in late March, but NetSoc failed to amend the
`
`Complaints for four months. Though Plaintiff is correct that the filing of its Amended Complaints before
`
`September 6 was permitted by this Court’s case management plan, see Dkt. 43, that the amendment was
`
`permitted does not make Plaintiff’s failure to correct such a pleading error for several months reasonable.
`
`Even if infringement claims based on the ‘107 Patent would not have been weak if the proper
`
`patent claims were included in the original complaints, NetSoc’s failure to correct its pleadings after
`
`counsel for both Oath and Quora informed it of the errors they contained qualifies as exceptional. See
`
`Lumen View Technology, LLC v. Findthebest.com, Inc., 24 F. Supp. 3d. 329, 336 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), rev’d
`
`on other grounds, 811 F.3d 479 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding an exceptional case where defendant’s counsel
`
`advised that defendant’s website used no “bilateral preference matching” before a complaint was filed
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12267-RA Document 96 Filed 12/10/20 Page 12 of 16
`
`but plaintiff nonetheless sued for infringement of a patent describing a “bilateral preference matching”
`
`process).
`
`Another factor in favor of awarding attorneys’ fees in this case is “the need . . . to advance
`
`considerations of . . . deterrence.” Octane Fitness, 572 U.S. at 554 n.6. There is no reason that any
`
`litigant, on notice of a considerable flaw in their filings from their opponents’ motions, would not at least
`
`check their filing and respond, including by amendment if needed. NetSoc has provided no explanation
`
`for why it failed to correct its pleadings for three months. Behavior such as this should be deterred.
`
`For these reasons, the Court concludes that this is an “exceptional case” within the meaning of
`
`the statute.
`
`B. Defendants are the “Prevailing Parties”
`To be the “prevailing party” under 35 U.S.C. § 285, a defendant must “rebuff[]” the plaintiff’s
`
`legal challenge, whether on the merits or otherwise. CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC, 136 S. Ct.
`
`1642, 1651 (2016). NetSoc contends that “Oath cannot establish it is a prevailing party as the matter is
`
`still pending.” Pl. Sanctions Opp’n at 10. But this assertion is incorrect; in fact, the ’107 Patent claims
`
`were dismissed with prejudice in September 2019. See Dkt. 82.3 That the dismissal was voluntary does
`
`not prevent Oath and Quora from being considered “prevailing parties,” given that the dismissal was
`
`with prejudice. See Blair v. Alstom Transportation, Inc., No. 16-CV-3391 (PAE), 2020 WL 4504842,
`
`at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2020); see also Raniere v. Microsoft Corp., 887 F.3d 1298, 1307 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2018) (holding that a “voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2)
`
`‘has the necessary judicial imprimatur to constitute a judicially sanctioned change in the legal
`
`relationship of the parties, such that the district court properly could entertain [the defendant's] fee claim
`
`
`3 Additionally, this Court dismissed NetSoc’s remaining claims against Oath on January 27, 2020. Dkt. 93. NetSoc’s
`remaining claims against Quora, which were transferred to the Northern District of California, have also been dismissed in
`full, see NetSoc, LLC v. Quora, Inc., No. 19-CV-06518-VC, 2020 WL 415919 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27 2020).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12267-RA Document 96 Filed 12/10/20 Page 13 of 16
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 285.”). For these reasons, the Court concludes that Oath and Quora are the “prevailing
`
`parties” within the meaning of the statute.
`
`C. With Minor Adjustment, the Fees Sought are Reasonable
`Fee awards are “based on the court’s determination of a ‘presumptively reasonable fee,’
`
`calculated as ‘the product of a reasonable hourly rate and the reasonable number of hours required by
`
`the case.’” Fertitta, 2018 WL 4961454, at *1 (quoting Millea, 658 F.3d at 166). Defendants’ counsel
`
`worked a reasonable number of hours, and charged reasonable rates. The period of time for which fees
`
`are requested, however, is not reasonable, and thus will be reduced. The Court will consider each aspect
`
`of the reasonableness calculation in turn.
`
`
`
`First, the Court concludes that the period of time for which fees have been sought must be reduced
`
`to be reasonable. Attorneys for both Oath and Quora request attorneys’ fees from the initial filing of
`
`NetSoc’s complaints through the filing of the Amended Complaints asserting the ‘591 Patent claims
`
`instead of the ‘107 Patent claims. See Oath Fees Mot., Dkt. 92, at 21 (seeking attorneys’ fees from the
`
`inception of the case through the dismissal of the ‘107 claim); see also Quora Joinder Mot., Dkt. 93, at
`
`2 (same). This Court, however, concludes that NetSoc’s conduct became “extraordinary” only after
`
`NetSoc was put on notice of the error in filing. Thus, NetSoc is not responsible for those attorneys’ fees
`
`amassed before March 25, 2019 and March 26, 2019, respectively. Instead, the Court will only award
`
`fees incurred after those dates and before July 9, 2019 (the date on which the erroneous claims were
`
`amended).
`
`Within that limited time period, however, the Court concludes that the time expended by
`
`Defendants’ counsel was reasonable. An award of attorneys’ fees should compensate only for “hours
`
`reasonably expended on the litigation,” and not for “hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise
`
`unnecessary.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433–34 (1983). Quora’s counsel—including both
`
`attorneys and paralegals—spent only 11.8 hours of work related to reviewing NetSoc’s opposition to
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12267-RA Document 96 Filed 12/10/20 Page 14 of 16
`
`Quora’s motion to dismiss, drafting their reply brief, and attending of joint defense group calls. Quora
`
`Joinder Mot., Dkt. 93, at 2. Moreover, 9.45 of the hours billed were handled either by a senior
`
`associate or paralegal. Id. This expenditure of time was reasonable. Similarly, Oath’s counsel billed
`
`66.10 hours from the filing of the initial motion to dismiss through the end of July 2019. See Hutton
`
`Decl., Dkt. 91 Ex. G. This time was spent reviewing NetSoc’s opposition, drafting Oath’s reply brief,
`
`coordinating with other defendants to submit their motion for a stay of discovery, and responding to
`
`NetSoc’s Amended Complaint. See id. Of these 66 hours, approximately half were billed by Allison
`
`Hutton, the primary attorney on this case, with the remainder billed by an associate, paralegal, and law
`
`clerks. See id. This expenditure of time was reasonable as well.
`
`The Court also concludes that the fee rates charged were reasonable. To determine a
`
`“reasonable hourly rate,” a court must consider the “prevailing market rate,” meaning “the rate
`
`‘prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill,
`
`experience and reputation.’” Id. (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984)). The
`
`“relevant community . . . is the district in which the court sits.” Farbotko v. Clinton Cty. of New York,
`
`433 F.3d 204, 208 (2d Cir. 2005). However, “district courts have ‘considerable discretion in
`
`determining what constitutes reasonable attorney’s fees in a given case.’” River Light V, L.P. v. Lin &
`
`J Int’l, Inc., No. 13-CV-3669 (DLC), 2015 WL 3916271, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2015) (quoting
`
`Matusick v. Erie Cty. Water Auth, 757 F.3d 31, 64 (2d Cir. 2014)).
`
`The declarations submitted by Quora’s counsel indicate that tenth-year senior associate Megan
`
`E. Bussey charged $567/hour; partners Steven D. Moore and Jordan Trent Jones charged rates of
`
`$787.50/hour and $715.50/hour, respectively; and paralegal Susie M. Moore charged an hourly rate of
`
`$301.50/hour. The declarations submitted by Oath’s counsel indicate that partner Allison Hutton, the
`
`primary attorney on this case, charged between $515/hour and $535/hour; associate Ralph Carter’s
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-12267-RA Document 96 Filed 12/10/20 Page 15 of 16
`
`hourly rate ranged between $420/hour and $460/hour; senior paralegal Edwin Grullon billed
`
`$200/hour; and various filing clerks billed $200/hour save one, who billed $210/hour. See Hutton
`
`Decl., Dkt. 91.
`
`The rates billed by Defendants’ attorneys is consistent with those rates often approved by this
`
`court. See, e.g., LCS Grp., 383 F. Supp. 3d at 280 (adjusting hourly rate for partners to $868.00);
`
`Errant Gene Therapeutic, LLC v. Sloane-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research, 286 F. Supp. 3d 585,
`
`588 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (accepting partner hourly rate of $765); MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co.
`
`Holding S.A. v. Forsyth Kownacki LLC, No. 16-CV-8103 (LGS), 2017 WL 1194372, at *3 (S.D.N.Y.
`
`Mar. 30, 2017) (accepting hourly rates between $569.02 and $753.42 per hour for associates depending
`
`on seniority). And although the rates charged by Defendants’ counsels’ paralegals and filing clerks are
`
`higher than usually awarded in this District, they are within a range this court has previously found
`
`reasonable. See, e.g., Vaigasi v. Solow Mgmt. Corp., No. 11-CV-5088 (RMB) (HBP), 2017 WL
`
`3868990, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2017) (“With respect to the rates of the paralegals and filing
`
`clerk[s] . . . this district typically awards rates not to exceed $200 per hour.”); Genger v. Genger, No.
`
`14-CV5683 (KBF), 2015 WL 1011718, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2015) (approving $260-280 paralegal
`
`rates). Moreover, the extensive experience of those paralegals and filing clerks involved in this case
`
`contributes to the reasonableness of these fees. See Hutton Decl., Dkt. 91 Ex. I (Oath’s paralegal has
`
`14 years’ experience as an IP paralegal, while its filing clerks have