February 17, 2019

February 15, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

February 14, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Evidence of Bad Faith Patent Prosecution Can Support an Award of Attorney Fees

A recent opinion from the District of New Jersey is a cautionary tale for patent practitioners regarding conduct during patent prosecution that can be framed as bad faith.  This can become an expensive misstep during subsequent litigation.  In Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc. et al., 2-05-cv-00897, the court granteddefendant Zimmer, Inc.’s (“Zimmer”) motion for over $13 million in attorney fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285 over plaintiff Howmedica Osteonics Corp.’s (“Howmedica”) argument that its actions did not support a finding of an exceptional case.

By way of background, Howmedica brought this action against Zimmer in 2005, alleging infringement of four of Howmedica’s patents that disclose processes for irradiating and heating polymers designed to extend the usable life of medical implants.  On August 19, 2008 the court granted Zimmer’s motion for partial summary judgement of invalidity with regard to three of the patents.  Zimmer also obtained rejections of all claims of the final patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,818,020 (“the ’020 patent”) through inter partes reexamination at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).  On appeal, the Federal Circuit confirmed these rejections.

Zimmer then moved under 35 U.S.C. § 285 for fees, costs, expert costs, and prejudgment interest that accrued during its decade long defense against Howmedica’s claims.  Under the Supreme Court’s guidance in Octane Fitness, Section 285 allows a court in “exceptional cases” to award reasonable attorney feed to the prevailing party.  Exceptionality under this standard is determined on a “case-by-case” basis considering a totality of the circumstances, and awards may be made where there is subjective bad faith, exceptionally meritless claims, or if a party has engaged in misconduct, even if that misconduct may not, in itself, be sanctionable.

Zimmer claimed this case was exceptional because Howmedica (1) engaged in inequitable conduct before the USPTO, (2) engaged in litigation misconduct, and (3) breached its disclosure duties before the USPTO during the inter partes reexamination.  As to the first point, during prosecution of the asserted patents, Howmedica selectively disclosed test data to the Examiner and was evasive in answering the Examiner’s questions.  Howmedica also submitted affidavits from a Dr. Wang which contained representations that directly contradicted previous publications made by him, which were not disclosed. Dr. Wang also failed to disclose that he was employed by the patent applicant at the time, and was not an independent expert.

In addition, during the case, Zimmer advanced a reference known as “Lue.”  Instead of challenging invalidity by the Lue reference, Howmedica adopted a “completely new and contradictory position.”  By doing so, Howmedica tacitly acknowledged that it knew what “defendant, [and] the Federal Circuit … ultimately agreed upon: the Lue reference invalidated their patents.”

The court also pointed to the fact that, during reexamination of the ’020 patent, Howmedica obtained a declaration by a Dr. Streicher, author of one of the biggest hurdles to validity aside from the Lue reference. This declaration contradicted the prior art reference in a way the court found to be implausible and “objectively unreasonable.”

Taken as a whole, the court found that this case was exceptional and awarded Zimmer its requested reasonable attorney fees and prejudgment interest.  While the court based its finding of exceptionality in this case on the totality of the circumstances, practitioners and patent owners should be mindful of their obligations to play fair during all stages of a patent’s life. Pushing the reasonable boundaries like Howmedica was held to do here resulted in a steep price: it will pay a fee award of over $13 million in fees and costs.

©1994-2019 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Andrew H. DeVoogd, Mintz Levin, Intellectual Property Litigation Lawyer, International Trade Commission Investigations attorney
Associate

Drew focuses his intellectual property practice in patent litigation specifically in International Trade Commission Section 337 investigations. He has participated in all phases of high-stakes patent litigation in the ITC, including as part of the strategy and trial team at multiple ITC evidentiary hearings, and also has significant experience in patent litigation in the federal district courts. In addition, Drew helps clients protect and leverage IP rights to maximize their value through strategic counseling, and has participated in negotiating and drafting numerous...

617.348.1611
Associate

Chris is a patent attorney whose practice focuses on IP litigation. He has worked on a variety of International Trade Commission cases involving mechanical, electrical, software, and computer engineering technology.  

Prior to joining Mintz Levin, Chris was a project attorney in the Boston office of a national, multi-practice law firm. Working with the patent prosecution team, he drafted responses to USPTO Office Actions involving telecommunications. 

Earlier Chris founded and ran a company that developed and sold kits for a Linux-powered gaming system. He later sold the company to an established gaming hardware company, which still produces his kits. He also worked for United Electric Controls — first as a manufacturing engineer and later as the prototype and development department manager — and as an engineer at Goodyear Dunlop Tires. 

617-348-3031