Case Number: 1:07-cv-11450-RWS
Judge Sweet, having previously found this case to be exceptional, awarded plaintiff-counterclaim defendant $2.7M of the $3.3M it requested. Reductions were due to block billing (a 10% reduction) and the court’s re-affirmance that fees for losing inequitable conduct defenses were not recoverable. The court said that the events that led to the charge of inequitable conduct happened three years into the case, and therefore did not form the basis for compulsory counterclaims. The court had previously concluded that fees for non-compulsory defenses were not awardable.
The court issued a Final Judgment [Dkt. 312] between Touch Tunes and Arachnid Inc.:
- Judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,191,780 is entered for Touch Tunes
- Judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,848,398 is entered for Touch Tunes
- Judgment of non-infringement of the U.S. Patent No. 6,790,834 is entered for Touch Tunes
- Judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,397,189 is entered for TouchTunes
- Judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,381,575 is entered for TouchTunes
- Judgment of invalidity of Claims 1-7 of the ‘398 Patent is entered for TouchTunes; and
- TouchTunes’ declaratory judgment claims for non-infringement and invalidity of
- U.S. Patent No. 5,930,765 are dismissed without prejudice
- Judgment that the ‘780, ‘398 and ‘834 patents are not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct
- Except as set forth above, all remaining claims and counterclaims in this action are dismissed without prejudice
- The Court has found Arachnid’s infringement allegations in this case to be exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and, pursuant to Section 285 and the Court’s inherent powers, awards TouchTunes its fees and costs in the amount of $2,728,471.54
The articles on our Website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice.