Pirri v. Cheek

Background

Alfred Pirri, Jr. sued Lori Cheek, Charlie Kickham, Locke Raper, and Cheek’d, Inc. over U.S. Patent No. 8,543,465. Pirri sought to be added as an inventor under 35 U.S.C. § 256, alleging that he had conceived the idea underlying the patent and shared it with his former mental-health therapist, who allegedly shared it with Cheek. He also asserted state-law claims and sought damages.

The court dismissed the remaining state-law claims as time-barred. Pirri’s federal joint-inventorship claim was the only claim left. The court later denied Pirri’s request to amend his complaint to add claims involving additional alleged inventors and defamation claims. It also denied Pirri’s effort to withdraw the joint-inventorship claim near the end of discovery.

After the court required Pirri to choose between opposing summary judgment and conceding that summary judgment was proper, Pirri filed a letter stating that he would not oppose summary judgment. The court then entered summary judgment for the defendants and closed the case.

Fee Motion and Legal Standards

The defendants sought attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the court’s inherent authority. Section 285 permits a court to award reasonable fees to the prevailing party in an exceptional patent case. An exceptional case is one that stands out because of the strength of a party’s position or the unreasonable way the case was litigated.

The court held that the defendants were prevailing parties because they obtained summary judgment on Pirri’s only remaining claim. The court did not need to decide whether fees were also justified under § 1927 or its inherent powers because it awarded fees under § 285.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that the case was exceptional. It described Pirri’s filings as lacking colorable factual and legal support and as containing unreasonable, accusatory, and unsupported arguments. The court focused particularly on Pirri’s conduct after October 2019, when, in the court’s view, he had no good-faith basis to continue pursuing the claim, oppose summary judgment, or demand a trial.

The court rejected Pirri’s arguments concerning Cheek’s alleged social-media campaign, threats from strangers, statements to a member of Congress, and alleged attempts to influence the litigation. It found that these assertions were irrelevant to the patent inventorship claim or unsupported by the evidence. The court also found that Pirri’s filings wasted judicial and defense counsel’s time and that a fee award would help deter unsupported lawsuits.

The court stated that the sanction should be paid by Pirri’s counsel rather than by Pirri. It reasoned that counsel prepared, signed, and filed the challenged submissions and certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 that the legal and factual contentions were supported. The court expressly stated that it was not imposing Rule 11 sanctions.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarded fees incurred from October 1, 2019, through December 23, 2019, the date of the summary judgment entry. The court directed defense counsel to submit billing records and a declaration identifying the fees. It stated that it would issue a later order specifying the amount to be paid by Pirri’s counsel. The opinion did not state the final dollar amount.