Patent Troll That Accused FindTheBest Of 'Hate Crime' For Fighting Back Now Has To Pay FTB's Legal Fees
from the fee-shifting-ftw dept
We've been talking about the importance of fee shifting in deterring bogus patent trolling suits for a while now. And while the trial lawyers fear of fee-shifting stupidly led them to kill the patent reform bill that included them, thankfully, the Supreme Court made fee shifting in patent cases more reasonable after smacking down the Federal Circuit (CAFC) once again.The impact of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Octane Fitness case around fee shifting is already being felt. We already noted that NewEgg was able to pursue fees against a troll, but in another high profile case, a court has already ordered a patent troll to pay up for the bogus lawsuit it brought.
You may recall this case: After patent troll Lumen View went after startup FindTheBest, FTB's CEO Kevin O'Connor announced that he'd spend $1 million fighting the troll rather than settling for the $50,000 offered. In response, Lumen View accused O'Connor of "hate crimes" for calling Lumen View a patent troll. Later, Lumen View sought (and thankfully failed) to get a gag order on FTB for revealing information that was perfectly fine to reveal. In fact, Lumen View demanded that FTB try to remove prior disclosures from the internet.
Of course it was all just posturing. While this was going on, Lumen View kept making more and more desperate attempts to get FTB to settle. But FTB knew it didn't need to settle because it wasn't violating the patent -- something it made clear to Lumen View right at the beginning. In the end, the court not only found that FTB didn't infringe, it invalidated the patent itself (US Patent 8,069,073, in case you were wondering).
And, now, Judge Denise Cote has also told Lumen View that, in light of the Octane Fitness ruling, it has to pay FTB's legal fees as well. The ruling notes that it was clear from the outset that FTB didn't infringe (whether or not the patent was valid), and Lumen's continued pursuit of FTB was clearly abusive.
First, Lumen’s lawsuit against FTB was “frivolous” and “objectively unreasonable.” “To be objectively baseless, the infringement allegations must be such that no reasonable litigant could reasonably expect success on the merits.” .... No reasonable litigant could have expected success on the merits in Lumen’s patent infringement lawsuit against FTB because the ‘073 Patent claimed a bilateral matchmaking process requiring multiple parties to input preference information, while FTB’s “AssistMe” feature utilizes the preference data of only one party. Lumen’s own claim construction brief construed the independent claim of the ‘073 Patent as requiring two or more parties to input preference data. That submission urged the term “preference data” to be construed “in conjunction with its plain and ordinary meaning.” And Lumen’s Complaint alleged that FTB’s infringement was predicated on the alleged use of bilateral preference matching. But FTB does not employ bilateral preference matching.The Judge makes it clear she knows that this was purely about trolling for settlement money all along:
And the most basic pre-suit investigation would have revealed this fact.... And if there were any confusion on this score -- and Lumen has provided no basis to find it was confused by the website -- Lumen was certainly on notice of this fact from the outset of the litigation. FTB’s Seigle and O’Connor informed Lumen that FTB’s AssistMe feature did not use the bilateral or multilateral preference matching process in a telephone conversation of June 19. And FTB’s attorney again informed Lumen by telephone and by letter of June 26. Yet Lumen proceeded with an obviously baseless lawsuit, failing to point to any specific way in which FTB infringed the patent.
Lumen’s motivation in this litigation was to extract a nuisance settlement from FTB on the theory that FTB would rather pay an unjustified license fee than bear the costs of the threatened expensive litigation. Lumen never sought to enjoin FTB from the allegedly infringing conduct in its prayer for relief. Lumen’s threats of “full-scale litigation,” “protracted discovery,” and a settlement demand escalator should FTB file responsive papers, were aimed at convincing FTB that a pay-off was the lesser injustice.Furthermore, the judge notes that since Lumen filed a bunch of very similar complaints, fees are certainly justified since the company seems to be using patent lawsuits as "part of a predatory strategy aimed at reaping financial advantage from the inability or unwillingness of defendants to engage in litigation against even frivolous patent lawsuits."
This is a great win for a company that was willing to stand up against a bogus patent troll lawsuit, and it's great to see that the troll will now have to pay up (how much will be determined later). Once again, we see how badly CAFC had screwed things up (for years!) with its ridiculously high standard for patent fees. Thanks to the Supreme Court fixing things in the Octane ruling, hopefully, we'll see more companies willing to stand up to trolls and not having to worry so much about how much it will cost to defend themselves against obviously bogus claims.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cafc, fee shifting, kevin o'connor, patent trolls, patents, supreme court
Companies: findthebest, lumen view, octane fitness
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Is that a sufficiently clear description of extortion for the police to investigate Lumen for practicing extortion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I would like to much harsher meted out to the trolls when they lose. I fear many will try abusive bankruptcies in an attempt to avoid paying the fines/fees when they lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are now expecting patent trolls to be "reasonable"? That's never going to work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TrollingLawyers.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TrollingLawyers.com
What could possibly go wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TrollingLawyers.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Charge the lawyers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Libel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Getting around gag orders
Before I sign any sort of agreement with a troll, I am bound by nothing. That is up to the very second the tip of my pen touches the signature line of an agreement. I don't see anything that would stop me from posting a copy of the agreement that pretty explicitly shows how it has NOT been signed by me (at least not yet), with language in the post stating very clearly that this is the exact wording of the agreement that I intend to sign, however once I sign I will not be allowed to confirm that.
Me signing the agreement cannot change the past, or force me to take down any documents or drafts that were circulated and/or published prior to me actually signing, right?
This seems no different than "The NSA has not compromised our systems. Please watch for removal of this notice."—proactively setting things up so that information may be communicated in a post-gag order world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]