Viavi Solutions Inc. v. Platinum Optics Technology Inc.

Background

This order addressed the amount of attorneys’ fees that Platinum Optics Technology Inc. (PTOT) could recover from Viavi Solutions Inc. in a patent-infringement case involving low-angle-shift optical filters. The court had previously ruled that the case was exceptional in certain respects under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and had granted in part PTOT’s motion for fees incurred after January 20, 2021. The earlier ruling found that Viavi unnecessarily prolonged the litigation after receiving the Wu Declaration, which stated that PTOT had not designed, manufactured, or sold the 11246 Filter for the purposes described in the declaration.

PTOT originally requested $826,654 in attorneys’ fees and $8,400 in costs. After the earlier fee ruling, PTOT submitted billing records and increased its requested fees to $970,665. Viavi challenged the reasonableness of the request. The court applied a “but-for” causation standard: PTOT could recover only fees that would not have been incurred without the conduct supporting the exceptional-case finding. The court also used the lodestar method as a guide, multiplying reasonable hours by reasonable hourly rates, while recognizing that fee calculations need not be audited line by line.

Court’s Analysis

The court found most of the requested hourly rates reasonable. It noted concerns about a $135 hourly rate for a legal support specialist and a $535 hourly rate for a senior paralegal, but did not reduce either rate because Viavi had not challenged them.

The court awarded the requested fees for PTOT’s motion to stay the case during inter partes review proceedings, PTOT’s work opposing Viavi’s motion to amend its infringement contentions, and PTOT’s motion to compel discovery. It declined to award $6,360 for prosecution-bar briefing and hearing because that work occurred before or around the time Viavi received the Wu Declaration. It also excluded $3,960 related to PTOT’s unsuccessful motion to quash a third-party subpoena and $45,575 related to Viavi’s motion to dismiss; each party was ordered to bear its own costs for those matters.

For settlement-related work, PTOT initially sought $115,953. After PTOT agreed to cut that amount by half, the court made further reductions for excessive binder preparation and unnecessary involvement by three attorneys. The court awarded $45,416 for that category.

The court reduced the fees requested for PTOT’s renewed summary-judgment motion by $3,342 for excessive binder preparation and $5,061 for block-billed entries, awarding $24,564 for that category. It reduced PTOT’s requested fees for preparing its cost bill from $26,748 to $8,201, which PTOT had agreed would cover the costs sought.

PTOT requested $307,410 for its original fee motion and supplemental submission. The court reduced the fee-motion portion by 27% because PTOT had unsuccessfully sought sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and expert-witness fees. It also reduced by 50% the amount attributed to redactions and relevance review in the supplemental submission. The order states that these reductions totaled $83,000.70 and $15,766.85, respectively.

The court reduced “other discovery” fees by $5,438.25, excluding amounts tied to the motion to quash and to a separate related action. It did not reduce the expert-discovery fees because the billing entries did not clearly show that they related to the separate action or inter partes review proceedings, and the court accepted PTOT’s representation that they had been allocated to this case.

Disposition

Judge Edward J. Davila concluded that PTOT was entitled to $713,077.20 in fees. The court ordered that PTOT’s motion for attorneys’ fees was GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.