Google’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees Denied on Appeal

Several years ago, iLOR, LLC, owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,206,839 ("'839 patent") for a method "for adding a user selectable function to a hyperlink," filed suit against Google claiming that the Google Notebook product infringed the '839 patent.[i] According to Claim 26 of the '839 patent, the method comprised a "toolbar being displayable based on a location of a cursor in relation to a hyperlink in a first page in a first window of an application."[ii] iLOR alleged that Google Notebook infringed the '839 patent because "the online application had a feature that allowed a user to right-click on a hyperlink while the cursor was positioned over that hyperlink," which "caused a toolbar to be displayed."[iii] However, Google argued that the "being displayed" limitation of the '839 patent narrowed that claim to only methods "where the toolbar was automatically displayed."[iv] The District Court agreed with Google's claim construction finding support in (1) the ordinary meaning of the claim language, (2) the specification, and (3) the prosecution history.[v] iLOR appealed the decision to the Federal Circuit, but the ruling was affirmed.[vi] Subsequently, Google moved for attorneys' fees, which the District Court granted.[vii] The District Court concluded that the case was objectively baseless, and that there was subjective bad faith on the part of iLOR.[viii] iLOR appealed that decision to the Federal Circuit, which recently issued its decision vacating the award of attorneys' fees.[ix]

According to the Federal Circuit, attorneys' fees can be awarded "if both (1) the litigation is brought in subjective bad faith, and (2) the litigation is objectively baseless."[x] Phrased another way, "the plaintiff's case must have no objective foundation, and the plaintiff must actually know this."[xi] However, contrary to the District Court's holding, the Federal Circuit did not find objective baselessness.[xii] Although iLOR's claim construction was broader and eventually rejected by both the District and Federal Courts, neither the claim language nor the specification clearly contradicts iLOR's construction.[xiii] Furthermore, in the prosecution history relied on by the District Court, a disclaiming statement regarding a prior art reference could have reasonably been argued to apply to a different claim other than Claim 26.[xiv] Therefore, even though rejected, iLOR "could reasonably argue for the claim construction that it proposed."[xv] Since iLOR could reasonably argue their claim construction, the suit was not objectively baseless.[xvi]

This case exemplifies the danger in bringing questionable patent infringement suits. Had iLOR lost on appeal, they would have had a judgment for attorneys' fees in the amount of $627,039.25 enforced against them.[xvii] However, perhaps even more damaging is that a narrow construction of iLOR's '839 patent has now been affirmed in court.

Practice Areas

Tell Us About Your IP Matter

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


Privacy Policy