Opinion
No. 1:99-CV-961
April 9, 2001
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
Before the Court is a motion for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(2). Defendant Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Inc. ("3M") seeks an award of attorney fees in the amount of $200,687.58 against plaintiff Strandtek International, Inc., ("Strandtek"). 3M seeks an award of attorney fees after obtaining judgment on all of Strandtek's claims.
On March 29, 2000, the Court issued an order of partial judgment dismissing Strandtek's claim for declaratory judgment of patent invalidity and non-infringement. Strandtek was permitted to file a second amended complaint in which it alleged unlawful interference with existing business relationships. 3M's motion for summary judgment on the second amended complaint was granted on November 20, 2000. On January 11, 2001, the Court, pursuant to Strandtek's motion to alter or amend judgment, made additional findings denying each specific basis of Strandtek's tortious interference claim.
3M's motion for attorney fees under Rule 54(d) was timely filed within 14 days of the January 11, 2001 order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(2)(B). The motion seeks fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 which provides that "[t]he court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party." 3M asserts that Strandtek's declaratory judgment and tortious interference claims were brought and maintained in bad faith and constitute vexatious litigation of frivolous claims.
When considering a request for an award of attorney fees, the Court must determine whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the case is "exceptional." Further, the Court must find that an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party is in fact warranted. See Interspiro USA, Inc., v. Figgie Int'l Inc., 18 F.3d 927 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The Court has discretion in awarding fees and may deny an award even if an exceptional case exists. See Reactive Metals Alloys Corp. v. ESM, Inc., 769 F.2d 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1985). An award of fees is to be made "sparingly" because it is a departure from the general rule that each party should bear its own litigation costs and fees. See Louis DuBuit v. Harwell Enter., Inc., 540 F.2d 690 (4th Cir. 1976).
The term "exceptional cases" has been interpreted as "incorporating concepts of fraud, malice, bad faith, and other similar concepts." Hoge Warren Zimmerman Co., v. Nourse Co., 293 F.2d 779, 784 (6th Cir. 1961). Cases supporting a finding of bad faith are those, for example, in which suit was pursued despite a knowing lack of supporting evidence, those lacking in any attempt to substantiate the defeated party's claims, or those exhibiting gross negligence in securing truthfulness of a claim. See Eltech Sys. Corp. v. PPG Indus., 903 F.2d 805 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Hughes v. Novi American Inc., 724 F.2d 122 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Simple negligence, oversight, or an erroneous judgment made in good faith is insufficient to support such a claim. Reactive Metals, 769 F.2d at 1583.
Based upon a thorough review of the record, the Court concludes that 3M has not proven by clear and convincing evidence that Strandtek acted frivolously, in bad faith, or vexatiously in pursuing its claims. This case is not an exceptional case and an award of fees in not warranted under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Accordingly, 3M's motion for attorney fees (Dkt. 45) is DENIED.