throbber
Case 2:15-cv-01047-RSP Document 354 Filed 01/25/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 29152
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:15-CV-01047-RSP
`
`
`
`
`
`










`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`ARTHREX, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SMITH & NEPHEW, INC.,
`ARTHROCARE, CORP.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`This patent infringement action proceeded to jury trial on December 2, 2016. At the
`
`conclusion of the five-day trial, the jury rendered a verdict finding that Defendants Smith &
`
`Nephew, Inc. and ArthoCare Corp. willfully infringed claims 10 and 11 of United States Patent
`
`No. 8,821,541, and claims 4, 8, 16, and 27 of United States Patent No. 9,179,907, and that the
`
`asserted claims are not invalid. See Dkt. No. 299. The jury awarded Arthrex, Inc. $17,400,000.00
`
`as a reasonable royalty. Id. Arthrex now moves for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Dkt. No.
`
`317. For the reasons explained below, Arthrex’s motion is DENIED.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Section 285 provides that a “court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney
`
`fees to the prevailing party.” An exceptional case is one that “stands out from other with respect
`
`to the substantive strength of the 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.” Octane
`
`Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749, 1756 (2014). Assessing whether a
`
`case is exceptional is left to the Court’s discretion, considering the “totality of the
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01047-RSP Document 354 Filed 01/25/17 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 29153
`
`circumstances.” Id. Factors that the Court may consider include “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 1756
`
`n.6. To be considered exceptional, conduct need not be “independently sanctionable” or bad faith
`
`behavior. Id. “[A] case presenting either subjective bad faith or exceptionally meritless claims”
`
`may justify an award of fees. Id. at 1757.
`
`Arthrex does not suggest that Defendants engaged in bad faith litigation behavior. Rather,
`
`Arthrex first argues that the fact that the jury found willful infringement is by itself sufficient for
`
`a fees award. Dkt. No. 317 at 2-4. The Court disagrees.
`
`The Federal Circuit cases supporting Arthrex’s argument, such Modine Mfg. Co. v. Allen
`
`Grp., Inc., 917 F.2d 538 (Fed. Cir. 1990), significantly predate the Supreme Court’s decision in
`
`Octane Fitness. See Dkt. No. 317 at 2-3. Modine, for example, concluded that “[a]n express
`
`finding of willful infringement is a sufficient basis for classifying a case as ‘exceptional,’ and
`
`indeed, when a trial court denies attorney fees in spite of a finding of willful infringement, the
`
`court must explain why the case is not ‘exceptional’ within the meaning of the statute.” 917 F.2d
`
`at 543. Since Octane Fitness, the Federal Circuit has acknowledged that a finding a willfulness
`
`does not necessarily make a case exceptional. See Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., 837 F.3d 1268,
`
`1279 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`While Arthrex cites one decision from this district referring to the Modine standard as
`
`late as 2016, see Georgetown Rail Equip. Co. v. Holland L.P., No. 6:13-CV-366, 2016 WL
`
`3346084, at *21 (E.D. Tex. June 16, 2016), the Court did not rely upon it but made extensive
`
`findings concerning the defendant’s “objectively unreasonable” positions which “needlessly
`
`multiplied the proceedings at the expense of the opposing side and the Court.” Modine is also
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01047-RSP Document 354 Filed 01/25/17 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 29154
`
`arguably inconsistent with Octane Fitness to the extent that it does not permit a court to consider
`
`the “totality of the circumstances” and instead allows focus solely on one element of a jury
`
`finding, a finding that incidentally is not even mentioned as a relevant factor by Octane Fitness.
`
`See 134 S. Ct. at 1756 n.6 (not including willful infringement in the non-exclusive list of factors
`
`to consider). Even Modine, however, recognizes that if a finding of willfulness makes a case
`
`exceptional, an award of attorney fees is within the discretion of the Court but is not required.
`
`Modine, 917 F.2d at 543.
`
`Arthrex’s second ground for attorney fees is the substantive weaknesses in Defendants’
`
`litigating positions. Dkt. No. 317 at 4-6. The Court does not agree. Having carefully listened to
`
`the testimony during the five-day trial in this case, it cannot be said that Defendants’ litigating
`
`positions were uniformly weak or without merit.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that this case is not
`
`exceptional and does not otherwise warrant an award of attorney fees under § 285. Accordingly,
`
`Arthrex’s motion (Dkt. No. 317) is DENIED.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket