Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 443 Filed 07/28/15 Page 1 of 4
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`
`
`
`14cv0111
`ELECTRONICALLY FILED
`
`DRONE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PARROT S.A., PARROT, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`ORDER OF COURT RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND
`MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES UNDER RULE 37 AND REPORT AND
`RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPECIAL MASTER THEREON
`(DOC. NOS. 415, 416, AND 438)
`
`The sole remaining issue for this Court in this case is a determination of the amount of
`
`
`
`
`
`the award of attorneys’ fees to Plaintiff, which this Court found was appropriate, pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 285, because of the exceptional nature of the case, as well as pursuant to Federal Rule
`
`of Civil Procedure 37, because of Defendants’ non-compliance with this Court’s Orders. Doc.
`
`Nos. 403-404. Pursuant to scheduling Orders, Plaintiff has filed two Motions, in which Plaintiff
`
`moves this Court to grant its Petition for Attorneys’ Fees and expenses pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
`
`285 in the total amount of $1,702,562.64 ($1,595,097.00 for attorneys’ fees; $107,465.63 for
`
`expenses), plus interest at 6%, compounded quarterly, and to separately order, pursuant to
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, that Defendants pay Plaintiff $174,702.00 for Defendants’
`
`non-compliance with this Court’s Orders. Doc. Nos. 415-416. Defendants contest the amount of
`
`hours claimed by Plaintiff, as well as the associated hourly rates. Doc. Nos. 429-430.
`
`
`
`The Court referred these matters to Special Master David White (who was previously
`
`appointed to serve as a Special Master as to a privilege dispute in this litigation) because of the
`
`fractious relationship between the Parties and the time and resources necessary to examine
`
`Plaintiff’s submitted hours and the corresponding billing rates. Doc. Nos. 189, 404. On July 21,
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 443 Filed 07/28/15 Page 2 of 4
`
`2015, Special Master White filed a 22-page Report and Recommendation. Doc. No. 438. In this
`
`Report, the Special Master details the background of the case relating to Plaintiff’s request for
`
`attorneys’ fees and expenses, the applicable law, including the methodology of calculation using
`
`the Hybrid Lodestar Approach, an evaluation of the reasonableness of the billable rate of the
`
`requested hours, the number of hours, and associated expenses, and an analysis of the Rule 37
`
`Petition. Doc. No. 438. Ultimately, Special Master White recommends that the Court award
`
`$1,686,290.14 to Plaintiff as a reasonable amount of attorneys’ fees and costs ($1,578,824.50 for
`
`attorneys’ fees; $107,465.64 for expenses as requested by Plaintiff) pursuant to the Section 285
`
`Petition, and there be no award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Rule 37 Petition, so that there is
`
`no risk of double recovery of fees. Doc. No. 438. Special Master White’s recommendation as to
`
`the Section 285 Petition is $16,272.49 less than Plaintiff’s initial request, which reflects his
`
`recommendation that Plaintiff’s hours for time relating to litigation in California and pertaining
`
`to Inter Partes Review be reduced by 42.05 hours. Doc. No. 438, pgs. 18-19. Pursuant to
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53, the Parties were provided with an opportunity to object to
`
`the Report and Recommendation. Doc. No. 439.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s sole response to the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation is a request
`
`that this Court’s Order delineate between awards pursuant to Section 285 and Rule 37 and order
`
`that the amount of the Rule 37 award be deducted from the Section 285 award, thereby
`
`preventing any risk of double recovery to Plaintiff, but enabling distinct appellate review of these
`
`matters. Doc. No. 440.
`
`
`
`Defendants object to the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation and contend that
`
`“to the extent fees are awarded at all,” the recommended award improperly includes hours that
`
`are unrelated to the case’s determination, and the hourly rate assessed is unreasonable. Doc. No.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 443 Filed 07/28/15 Page 3 of 4
`
`441. Defendants request a hearing, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(f)(1), in order
`
`to be heard on these issues. Id. The issues raised by Defendants have been ably addressed in
`
`detail by the Special Master and aptly briefed in the Parties’ objections to the Report and
`
`Recommendation. Defendants’ request for a hearing is denied because the Court is able to
`
`decide the disputed matters on the current record. See Sandvik Intellectual Property AB v.
`
`Kennametal Inc., 2013 WL 141193, at * 1 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2013) (McVerry, J.) (cited by
`
`Defendants, Doc. No. 441, FN 1).
`
`
`
`After personally reviewing Plaintiff’s Petitions and underlying documents, the Parties’
`
`briefs and objections, and the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation, an exercise with
`
`which this Court is intimately familiar and well-experienced from more than a decade on the
`
`Federal bench (including serving as a Patent Pilot Judge) and over 30 years of litigation practice
`
`(including serving as Deputy Head of Litigation, Chair of Litigation, and Chief Counsel-
`
`Complex Litigation of two regional/national law firms), the Court finds that the hourly rates
`
`requested are reasonable and reflective of the market rates for patent litigators in Pittsburgh, and
`
`the number of hours requested are reasonable, especially in light of the Court’s intimate
`
`knowledge of the unprecedented nature of this litigation over a period of 18 months, in which the
`
`entire proceeding was impeded and unduly complicated by Defendants’ exceptional conduct.
`
`Therefore, the following Order is entered:
`
`AND NOW, this 28th day of July, 2015, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
`
`1. Special Master White’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 438) is ADOPTED as
`
`the Opinion of this Court with the clarification that once an award for Rule 37 fees has
`
`been paid, the amount should be deducted from the total amount due under Section 285 to
`
`prevent double recovery by Plaintiff;
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 443 Filed 07/28/15 Page 4 of 4
`
`2. Plaintiff’s Objection to the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 438)
`
`is GRANTED;
`
`3. Defendants’ Objections to the Report and Recommendation of Special Master on
`
`Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses are OVERRULED (Doc. No. 441);
`
`4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Petition for Attorneys’ Fees Under Rule 37) (Doc.
`
`No. 416) is GRANTED;
`
`5. Defendants are ordered to pay Plaintiff’s fees under Rule 37 in the amount of
`
`$173,013.001;
`
`6. Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Petition for Attorneys’ Fees) (Doc. No. 415) is
`
`GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART;
`
`7. Defendants are ordered to pay Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and related non-
`
`taxable expenses, under 35 U.S.C. § 285, in the total amount of $1,686,290.14, plus
`
`interest at 6%, compounded quarterly. Once paid, the amount of fees due under Rule 37
`
`should be deducted from this total so as to prevent double recovery by Plaintiff (i.e.,
`
`$1,686,290.14 less $173,013.00); and
`
`8. This case remains CLOSED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Arthur J. Schwab
`Arthur J. Schwab
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`cc:
`
`All Registered ECF Counsel and Parties
`
`
`1 Plaintiff reduced the amount of fees requested pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 based
`upon the adjustments to the fees requested under 35 U.S.C. § 285 contained in the Special Master’s
`Report and Recommendation. Doc. No. 440, FN 1.
`
`
`
`4