Sometimes just because the rules permit something doesn't mean doing it is a good idea. As our latest case-of-the-week shows, the result could be an award of attorney fees.
Case of the week:Realtime Adaptive Streaming v.
Panel: Judges Newman, Reyna, and Chen, with
You should read this case if: you have a matter involving attorney fees
Our case-of-the-week began when the plaintiff, Realtime, filed a patent-infringement action in
The day after its dismissal, Realtime sued the same defendant (Netflix) on the same patents in the
The CDCal action prompted a motion for attorney fees and to transfer the case back to
The Federal Circuit affirmed Realtime's appeal of that award. The Court declined to reach the issue of whether back-to-back voluntary dismissals made the defendant a prevailing party, as Section 285 requires. The Court explained that the district court's inherent-powers alternative was sufficient to sustain the award: "A district court may rely on its inherent equitable powers to award attorneys' fees even if there is a statutory provision creating an alternative vehicle."
Applying Ninth Circuit law because the issue "is not a substantive patent question," the Federal Circuit explained that a court may use its inherent powers to sanction a party that "acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons." In the Ninth Circuit, a party acts in bad faith when it "has engaged in willful actions with an improper purpose." The Federal Circuit held that the district court had reasonably found that Realtime acted in bad faith based on three factors: (1) the
The Federal Circuit rejected Realtime's argument that there was no bad faith because the rules permitted Realtime's actions. The Court agreed "that it is generally permissible under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) for a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action and refile the case in another forum." But that was "a woefully incomplete description of the circumstances of this case." Realtime had "misuse[d]" the ability to refile in an attempt "to wipe the slate clean" after the writing was on the wall in
OTHER WEEKLY STATS
Precedential opinions: 2
Non-precedential opinions: 5
Rule 36: 0
Longest pending case from argument:Realtime Adaptive Streaming v.
Shortest (non-Rule 36) pending case from argument: Podlucky v. US, No. 22-1319 and No. 22-1328 (20 days) (companion cases)
Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
©
Mr
Suite 5500
20006-1888
Tel: 4152687000
Fax: 4152687522
E-mail: mcervantes@mofo.com
URL: www.mofo.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2022 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source