April 24, 2024

Saluti Law Medi

Rule it with System

Hyper Bicycles, Inc. Awarded Lawyer Fees in Patent Infringement Scenario | Whitcomb Selinsky, Laptop

This Patent Regulation circumstance requires a patent infringement lawsuit introduced by Fa-Hsing Lu against Hyper Bicycles, Inc. with regards to two style patents Lu retains for the decorative design and style of a bicycle. In a prior ruling, the court docket interpreted the patents and provided a summary judgment in favor of Hyper, dismissing Lu’s promises. The current scenario is in regard to Hyper’s motion to go after attorneys’ costs.


In September 2020, Lu initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in opposition to Hyper, alleging infringement on two United States patents relevant to bicycle structure. Hyper denied these allegations and counterclaimed with 13 promises in opposition to Lu.

A Markman hearing was conducted in Oct 2021 to establish the interpretation of the patents’ promises. The Court docket subsequently issued a memorandum and buy, adopting a confined verbal interpretation of the patents.

Extensions of time have been granted in 2022 and 2023 to allow for truth-locating and expert exploration. In June 2023, Hyper submitted a movement for summary judgment, which was granted by the Court docket in August 2023.

In the present case, Hyper sought legal professional expenses beneath the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 285, which permits the restoration of legal expenses in patent-similar disputes under certain circumstances where by the scenario is deemed “exceptional.”

Factors for Determining Exceptionality

The dedication of whether a situation qualifies as “exceptional” beneath the Patent Act hinges on two principal things: the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position and the fashion in which the situation was litigated. Just presenting incorrect or unsuccessful lawful and factual arguments in the course of litigation is not adequate to establish exceptionality. 

Courts evaluate the fantastic nature of a case on a situation-by-situation foundation, getting into account the entirety of the instances. Various factors lead to a finding of exceptionality, which include frivolousness, determination, goal unreasonableness in each the factual and authorized features of the scenario, as well as the need to market compensation and deterrence. 

Perseverance of Circumstance Exceptionality

The court examined the totality of instances and found the scenario remarkable primarily based on the frivolity of Lu’s claims and his failure to litigate the circumstance meaningfully. The plaintiff’s steady requests for extensions resulted in a drawn-out legal battle that would have spanned a few decades if the fourth motion to lengthen had been granted. All through the period of the situation, the plaintiff demonstrated a lack of engagement in meaningful litigation techniques, which includes the absence of prepared discovery, depositions, or skilled witnesses from the plaintiff’s facet.

Also, Lu’s response to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was feeble at greatest, as he barely contested the movement and admitted to essential details that favor the defendant’s posture. Therefore, the plaintiff’s arguments from taking into consideration this case as “exceptional” fail to encourage.

Also, Lu’s very own deposition testimony, together with proof provided by the defendant’s principal, directly contradicts the promises created by the plaintiff. Moreover, the plaintiff unsuccessful to undertake even primary fact-discovering efforts and did not supply any substantiating evidence regarding the alleged damages.

In addition to the plaintiff’s disregard for excellent religion and value command, they unsuccessful to demonstrate any real efforts in reducing the overall costs incurred in the course of the legal proceedings. Taking into consideration these missteps and the in general carry out of the plaintiff, the Courtroom determined that this scenario falls within just the realm of “fantastic” as defined by the Patent Act.


The courtroom concluded that Lu’s counsel need to have recognized the declare was meritless immediately after Lu’s admission about deficiency of evidence of infringing sales. Therefore, Hyper was awarded charges and fees only from that day ahead, barring proof the suit was filed in bad faith at first or Lu engaged in misconduct.

In light-weight of the aforementioned reasoning, the court docket granted Hyper’s movement to recover reasonable attorney expenses incurred subsequent to Lu’s admission of the absence of evidence regarding the sale of infringing goods. However, the movement was denied in all other areas.

[View source.]