Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 51-6 Filed 01/19/18 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 631
`Case 2:17-cv-00517—JRG Document 51-6 Filed 01/19/18 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 631
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 51-6 Filed 01/19/18 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 632
`Case 2:17-cv-00517—JRG Document 51-6 Filed 01/19/18 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 632
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`
`CASE NO. 14-cv-80651-MIDDLEBROOKS
`
`ADVANCED GROUND INFORMATION
`
`SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LIFE360, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`/
`
`ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`ATTORNEYS’ FEES
`
`Life360 Inc. (“Life360”), the prevailing party in this patent case, has moved for award of
`attorneys’
`fees and non-taxable expenses, along with pre- and post-I judgment
`interest.
`The
`
`Plaintiff, Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. (“AGIS”) responds that its infringement case
`
`was objectively reasonable, litigated in good faith, and there is no basis for any award of attorneys’
`
`fees.
`
`I have reviewed the Motion, the Response, Life360’s Reply, and presided over the jury trial
`
`which resulted in a finding of no infringement. The jury, however, did not invalidate the AGIS
`
`patent.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 285 of the Patent Act provides that a district court “in exceptional cases may
`
`award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” The Supreme Court has held that “an
`
`‘exceptional’ case is simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength
`
`of a party’s litigating position (considering both the governing law and the facts of the case) or the
`
`unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated.” Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health &
`
`Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749, 1756 (2014). This requires a case-by-case exercise in discretion,
`
`considering the totality of the circumstances.
`
`Id.
`
`Sanctionable conduct
`
`is not a necessary
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 51-6 Filed 01/19/18 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 633
`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 51-6 Filed 01/19/18 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 633
`
`benchmark.
`
`Id. Moreover, courts maintain an inherent power to order fee-shifting “when the losing
`
`party has ‘acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.” Id. (quoting
`
`Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 US. 240, 258—59 (1975)).
`
`This was an exceptionally weak case, especially with respect to the asserted method claims,
`
`which were the only claims remaining after claim construction. Every asserted method claim
`
`involved steps that could only be performed by multiple users on different cellular phones, or even
`
`by third-party servers.
`
`Infringement of a method claim requires a showing that a single party
`
`performed each and every step of the claim, and inducement liability must be predicated on an act
`
`of direct infringement (i.e. for a method claim, infringement by a single party). Limelight Networks,
`
`Inc. v. Akamai Techs, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014). See also, Akamai Techs, Inc v. Limelight
`
`Networks, Inc., 786 F.3d 899 (Fed. Cir. 2015), on reh ’g en banc, 797 F.3d 1020, and reh ’g en banc
`
`granted, opinion vacated, 612 F. App’x 617. Users of the Life360 app could not perform the
`
`asserted method claim because no user had control of other users in a circle. Moreover, neither
`
`Life360 or its users controlled or maintained “a remote network server” that could transmit maps to
`
`other users in the circle. Additionally, Claim I of the ‘954 Patent required accessing a website that
`
`enables a user to establish both public and private networks, but any contention that the Life360 app
`
`allowed users to do so was completely untenable after claim construction.
`
`These Parties never competed, never lost business to each other, indeed had never heard of
`
`each other before AGIS lawyers sent a demand letter to Life360, a startup company that, while
`
`showing promise, had never made a profit. The letter demanded that Life360 either negotiate a
`
`royalty or shut down its service. The Complaint claimed, without any basis that it was being
`
`irreparably harmed by Life360, that Life 360 should be enjoined from operation. While I stop short
`
`of a finding of bad faith, continued assertion of these claims seemed designed to extract settlement
`
`not based upon the merits of the claim but on the high cost of litigation.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 51-6 Filed 01/19/18 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 634
`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 51-6 Filed 01/19/18 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 634
`
`AGIS, in arguing the case was not exceptional, points to the denial of summary judgment
`
`and the fact that I submitted the case to the jury and did not grant Life360’s Motion for Judgment as
`
`a Matter of Law.
`
`I considered granting summary judgment in favor of Life360 but did not because
`
`of an argument that the claimed method steps were performed automatically as a result of sending
`
`an invitation to join a circle. While I reserved ruling on the Motion for Judgment, I did so having
`
`decided that, should it prove necessary,
`
`I would enter judgment
`
`in favor of Life360 on the
`
`infringement claim.
`
`Having concluded the case was exceptional, I turn to the amount of fees that should be
`
`awarded. The Complaint in the case was filed on May 15, 2014. The Supreme Court’s decision in
`
`Limelight Networks, 134 S. Ct. 2111 was decided June 2, 2014. This decision confirmed the single
`
`part impediment to the method claims. On November 21, 2014, I issued a Markman Order which
`
`held the system claims indefinite and construed “common interest network” and “private” and
`
`“public” networks. Given the Supreme Court’s decision and my Markman construction, AGIS had
`
`no reasonable chance of success on its claims.
`
`I therefore award fees from November 21, 2014
`
`through the conclusion of trial, March 13, 2015.
`
`Life360 also seeks to recover expert witness fees, pre- and post- judgment interest, and non-
`
`taxable expenses. But 35 U.S.C. § 285 only authorizes a court to award reasonable attorney fees not
`
`expert witness fees, Amsted Indus. Inc. v. Buckeye Steel Castings C0,, 23 F.3d 374, 377-79 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1994), and as noted above, I am exercising discretion solely pursuant to § 285 and not relying
`
`upon any inherent power to sanction conduct. Therefore, expert witness fees are not awarded.
`
`With respect to prejudgment interest, the Federal Circuit has held in a pre-Octane Fitness
`
`decision that “a district court does have authority,
`
`in cases of ‘bad faith or other exceptional
`
`circumstances,’ to award prejudgment interest on the unliquidated sum of an award made under
`
`Section 285.” Mathis v. Spears, 857 F.2d 749, 761 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The court went on to say,
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 51-6 Filed 01/19/18 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 635
`Case 2:17-cv-00517—JRG Document 51-6 Filed 01/19/18 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 635
`
`however, “[t]hat the court has a common law authority to exercise its inherent equitable power does
`3
`
`not mean it must do so.’
`
`Id. Assuming but not deciding that § 285 authorizes the award of
`
`prejudgment interest in the absence of a finding of bad faith, in the circumstances of this case, I do
`
`not find it appropriate. Furthermore,
`
`I do not find the award of non-taxable expenses to be
`
`warranted.
`
`While AGIS raised questions about aspects of the fees requested, the reply represents that
`
`the invoices attached to its Motion are the bills that were submitted to Life3 60. The amounts of fees
`
`between November 21, 2014 and March 13, 2015 total $684,190.25.1 These fees are reasonable in
`
`the view of the Court and, due to the exceptional nature of the case, should be awarded.
`
`Accordingly, it is hereby
`
`ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (DE 190) is
`
`GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
`
`Judgment in the amount of $684,190.25 shall
`
`be entered in favor of Life360.
`
`SO ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida, this
`
`Z
`
`day of December,
`
`2015.
`
`/
`
`
`
`/
`
`[I 0" LD M. MIDDLEBROOKS
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`Copies to:
`
`Counsel of Record
`
`1 This total includes the sum of lead counsel fees, $602,346.25, plus local counsel fees, $81,844.
`Lead counsel fees were calculated by taking the sum of $920,045.00 (total fees incurred by lead
`counsel) see (DE 191-2 at 2), and subtracting $317,698.75 (lead counsel fees incurred before
`November 21, 2014 and after March 13, 2015), see (id. at 3—31). Local counsel fees were calculated
`in a similar manner.
`
`4
`
`