Court Awards Attorneys’ Fees Under Patent Act but Denies Sanctions

In Linfo IP, LLC v. Aero Global, LLC, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York awarded attorneys’ fees under the Patent Act, finding the case “exceptional,” but declined to impose sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 or its inherent authority.

According to an article in Patterson Belknap’s NY Patent Decisions Blog, Judge J. Paul Oetken held that while the plaintiff’s litigation conduct warranted fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285, the record lacked “clear evidence” of subjective bad faith necessary to justify broader sanctions.

Linfo IP had sued Aero Global for infringing U.S. Patent No. 9,092,428, which covers methods for discovering and presenting text-based information in various formats. After the suit began, another federal judge, Jesse M. Furman, ruled in a separate case that the same patent was invalid.

Judge Oetken later granted Aero Global’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that Linfo was collaterally estopped from asserting infringement claims based on an invalid patent. Aero Global then moved for attorneys’ fees under multiple statutory and equitable bases.

Judge Oetken found that the case met the “exceptional” standard of Section 285 because Linfo’s patent was “objectively invalid” and its repeated enforcement reflected unreasonable litigation conduct. The court cited Linfo’s history of repeatedly asserting the same patent without reaching the merits and its counsel’s record of filing frivolous suits as factors supporting the award.

However, the court denied sanctions under Section 1927 and the court’s inherent authority, noting that the evidence did not conclusively show Linfo’s subjective intent to act in bad faith, particularly since the invalidity ruling occurred after the lawsuit was filed.

The decision serves as a reminder to IP lawyers that while weak patent claims and abusive litigation can justify fee awards, courts require concrete proof of intent before imposing punitive sanctions.