RDPA, LLC v. Geopath, Inc.

Background

RDPA sued Geopath, alleging infringement of five patents that RDPA said it solely owned. Geopath moved to dismiss under the rule governing dismissal of a complaint, arguing that the patents were not eligible for protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they were directed to an abstract idea. In an earlier opinion and order dated June 15, 2021, the court granted Geopath’s motion. Judgment in Geopath’s favor was entered on June 16, 2021.

Geopath then moved for attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. That statute allows a court to award fees to the prevailing party in an “exceptional” case. The court explained that an exceptional case is one that stands out because of the strength of a party’s legal position or the unreasonable way the case was litigated. The court also considered factors such as frivolousness, motivation, objective unreasonableness, and whether fees were needed for compensation or deterrence.

Arguments and Analysis

Geopath argued that RDPA’s position was one that no reasonable litigant could expect to succeed. Geopath pointed to the court’s conclusion that the patents failed the Alice test and argued that the patents were clearly ineligible under existing precedent.

The court rejected that argument. Although the court had concluded that RDPA’s patents were directed to an abstract idea, it found that RDPA’s arguments were without merit but not frivolous. The court noted that issued patents are presumed valid, that RDPA had made colorable arguments that its patents satisfied the Alice standards, and that the law concerning what qualifies as an abstract idea had uncertainties. The court also stated that RDPA’s arguments were not presumed to have been made in bad faith.

Geopath separately argued that RDPA litigated unreasonably by refusing to abandon the case after Geopath explained during prelitigation discussions that it would challenge the patents’ validity. The court found that RDPA’s lawsuit was not frivolous. RDPA had submitted an expert declaration stating that the patents covered patentable material, and RDPA asserted that 181 current licensees supported the view that the patents were not obviously unenforceable. The court concluded that RDPA was not required to abandon the lawsuit merely because Geopath had advised it that Geopath would challenge the patents’ validity.

Geopath also identified alleged litigation misconduct: leaving service documents on the floor outside Geopath’s office, delivering an unsigned summons, communicating with the court outside the presence of the opposing party, failing to provide notice of the initial conference, and filing a late response to a letter motion. The court found that these actions did not rise to the level of sanctionable conduct warranting an attorney’s-fee award. The court explained that the communication at issue was an email asking about RDPA’s obligation to file a case-management plan because Geopath had not been served; the court responded through a publicly filed order. The court also addressed the conference-notice issue by adjourning the initial conference.

Ruling

Judge Lewis J. Liman denied Geopath’s motion for attorney’s fees. The ruling means Geopath did not receive the requested fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285, even though the court had previously entered judgment in Geopath’s favor on RDPA’s patent lawsuit.