By Donald Zuhn --
Last week, in Tangelo IP, LLC v. Tupperware Brands Corp., District Judge Richard G. Andrews of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied a motion for exceptional case filed by Defendant Tupperware Brands Corp., finding that Tupperware Brands had failed to establish that the case was exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Plaintiff Tangelo IP, LLC had filed suit against Tupperware Brands, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,429,005. Tupperware Brands responded by filing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the '005 patent was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The District Court granted the motion, and Tupperware Brands then moved for a finding of exceptional case and requested attorneys' fees under § 285.
In determining that the case was not exceptional, the District Court noted that although it had found the '005 patent to be invalid under § 101, "that does not mean Plaintiff's contrary position was unreasonable." In support, the Court cited SFA Sys., LLC v. Newegg Inc., 793 F.3d 1344, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015), for the proposition that "it is the substantive strength of the party's litigating position that is relevant to an exceptional case determination, not the correctness or eventual success of that position" (emphasis in opinion).
In response to Tupperware Brands' argument that Tangelo had "ignored substantial precedent dismissing analogous claims directed to concepts long-practiced in society," the Court noted that Tupperware Brands had "identifie[d] no precedent addressing claims analogous to those in the '005 patent, at least beyond the broad category of claims directed to 'concepts long-practiced in society.'" Judge Andrews also noted that he had not identified any cases in which analogous claims had been found to be patent ineligible.
Judge Andrews concluded the opinion by distinguishing the instant case from his decision in Finnavations LLC v. Payoneer, Inc., 2019 WL 1236358 (D. Del. Mar. 18, 2019). In Finnavations, Judge Andrews had granted motions for exceptional case and attorneys' fees based on claims that were "plainly directed at a patent ineligible concept," where there was "no question" that the patent at issue was invalid because the claims were analogous to those struck down in Alice. Judge Andrews found the instant case to be "clearly a different situation," explaining that while he ultimately agreed with Tupperware Brands regarding the validity of the '005 patent, "there is room for argument." Judge Andrews also pointed out that he was not aware of any precedent that leaves "no question" as to the validity of the '005 patent, "particularly in view of the somewhat opaque nature of § 101." The Court therefore denied Tupperware Brands' motion for a finding of exceptional case.
Tangelo IP, LLC v. Tupperware Brands Corp. (D. Del. 2019)
Memorandum Order by District Judge Andrews
Comments