Over $2.5 in fees and expenses awarded to Patentee in exceptional case
Philips Electronics North America Corp. et al. v. Compo Micro Tech, Inc., et al., No. 02-123-KAJ, Oct. 23, 2006.
Jordan, J. The Court awarded $2,448,750 in attorneys fees and $285,690.44 in expenses. $2,515,514.90 in fees and $747,141.93 had been requested. Summary judgment of infringement was granted on April 5, 2004 with respect to one patent-in suit and summary judgment of non-infringement with respect to a second. A trial was held on the issue of willful infringement, damages, and invalidity. On April 19, 2004 the jury upheld the validity of the patent and awarded Philips $1 in damages for each remote control device sold, and found infringement was not willful. On April 19, 2004, the court granted Philips’ motion for attorney fees and expenses based upon findings that Defendant CMT’s representations regarding its financial records were incredible, that CMT had engaged in delay tactics during discovery and that it had engaged in trial misconduct. The court required documentation of the number of hours worked, when the hours were worked, and what was done by whom during those hours, in addition to support for reasonable hourly rates, $66,764.90 for Delaware counsel fees were rejected for inadequate documentation, but leave to supplement was granted. Because only part of the infringement claims were successful, plaintiff devised a method for reducing total fees by percentages to account for work unrelated to the successful claims and to other defendants. The relevant community to compare prevailing rates is the community where the party sought representation and not the litigation forum, Delaware. The New York firm Sullivan and Cromwell does not charge by the hour, but compared its billing with the rates of Weil Gotshal, Kirkland & Ellis, and Latham & Watkins. The court did not allow expert witness fees, reduced photocopying and scanning costs by 50% for inadequate documentation, and denied “miscellaneous” expenses for the same reason.
Jordan, J. The Court awarded $2,448,750 in attorneys fees and $285,690.44 in expenses. $2,515,514.90 in fees and $747,141.93 had been requested. Summary judgment of infringement was granted on April 5, 2004 with respect to one patent-in suit and summary judgment of non-infringement with respect to a second. A trial was held on the issue of willful infringement, damages, and invalidity. On April 19, 2004 the jury upheld the validity of the patent and awarded Philips $1 in damages for each remote control device sold, and found infringement was not willful. On April 19, 2004, the court granted Philips’ motion for attorney fees and expenses based upon findings that Defendant CMT’s representations regarding its financial records were incredible, that CMT had engaged in delay tactics during discovery and that it had engaged in trial misconduct. The court required documentation of the number of hours worked, when the hours were worked, and what was done by whom during those hours, in addition to support for reasonable hourly rates, $66,764.90 for Delaware counsel fees were rejected for inadequate documentation, but leave to supplement was granted. Because only part of the infringement claims were successful, plaintiff devised a method for reducing total fees by percentages to account for work unrelated to the successful claims and to other defendants. The relevant community to compare prevailing rates is the community where the party sought representation and not the litigation forum, Delaware. The New York firm Sullivan and Cromwell does not charge by the hour, but compared its billing with the rates of Weil Gotshal, Kirkland & Ellis, and Latham & Watkins. The court did not allow expert witness fees, reduced photocopying and scanning costs by 50% for inadequate documentation, and denied “miscellaneous” expenses for the same reason.
