Cambridge Products, Ltd. v. Penn Nutrients, Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 May 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-1514,91-1514 |
| Citation | 22 USPQ2d 1577,962 F.2d 1048 |
| Parties | CAMBRIDGE PRODUCTS, LTD., and Naremco, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. PENN NUTRIENTS, INC., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Bernard L. Sweeney, Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, Falls Church, Va., argued, for plaintiffs-appellees. With him on the brief was Robert J. Kenney.
Richard O. Church, of Richard O. Church, Reading, Pa., argued, for defendant-appellant. Jeffrey M. Navon, Synnestvedt & Lechner, Philadelphia, Pa., was on the brief.
Before RICH, Circuit Judge, BENNETT, Senior Circuit Judge, and NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.
Penn Nutrients, Inc., seeks review of the August 21, 1991 decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania which denied its motion for an award of attorney fees under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 and 35 U.S.C. § 285 in connection with the voluntary dismissal with prejudice of Cambridge's infringement action. Cambridge and Naremco allege that Penn's appeal to this court is frivolous and that sanctions under Fed.R.App.P. 38 should be imposed against Penn in the form of full attorney fees and double costs. This court affirms the district court's denial of an attorney fee award to Penn, declines to impose Rule 38 sanctions and awards Cambridge attorney fees for this appeal.
Since 1972, Naremco manufactured and sold methylrosaniline chloride-based mold inhibitors under the registered trademark GV-11 and in 1977 received U.S. Letters Patent No. 4,044,152 (the '152 patent) which claimed "a Method of Preparing Methylrosaniline Chloride Anti-Microbial Compositions." Cambridge was Naremco's exclusive marketing agent for the mold inhibitor.
In 1987, Penn began to sell a competing mold inhibitor called "6BA Liquid 40% DS-3361," purchasing its methylrosaniline chloride from the same source Cambridge did and using it to manufacture its product. On June 3, 1988, Cambridge and Naremco brought an action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania charging Penn with infringement of the '152 patent. Within two weeks of the trial date, Cambridge and Naremco moved under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2) for voluntary dismissal of the action it had filed, with prejudice. Cambridge so moved based on a declaratory judgment issued by the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri which would allow the FDA to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to regulate and possibly ban the marketing of feed additive products containing methylrosaniline chloride and thus would result in "a severe and irreversible effect on the market ... and, therefore on the plaintiffs' financial position as well...." On February 28, 1990, the Pennsylvania district court entered an order granting the motion and dismissing the action with prejudice.
On March 26, 1990, Penn filed a motion claiming entitlement to attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 1 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. 2 The district court ruled:
Upon consideration of defendant's motion for an award of attorneys fees, plaintiffs' substantive response, defendant's reply to plaintiffs' substantive response, and the parties' supporting memoranda, and because:
1. I approve of the reasons for denying defendant's motion set forth in plaintiffs' substantive response and adopt them as my own.
2. ACCORDINGLY, defendant's motion for an award of attorneys fees is DENIED.
Penn appealed. Cambridge and Naremco claim entitlement to attorney fees for this appeal in accordance with Fed.R.App.P. 38 3, alleging that Penn's appeal is frivolous.
The parties agree that the abuse of discretion standard governs our review of the district court's action in this case. In Heat and Control, Inc. v. Hester Indus., Inc., 785 F.2d 1017, 1022, 228 USPQ 926, 930 (Fed.Cir.1986), this court said that "An abuse of discretion occurs when (1) the court's decision is 'clearly unreasonable, arbitrary or fanciful;' (2) the decision is based on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) the court's findings are clearly erroneous; or (4) the record contains no evidence on which the district court rationally could have based its decision." Our decision in PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1572, 6 USPQ2d 1010, 1016 (Fed.Cir.1988), further explained the application of this standard, stating that "[d]iscretion, in this sense, is abused if the record contains no basis on which the district court rationally could have made its decision or if the judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful or clearly unreasonable...."
Rule 11 requires that Cambridge have made a reasonable inquiry into both the facts and the law supporting particular pleadings. Penn argues that although Cambridge performed an independent chemical analysis of its allegedly infringing product, Cambridge did not make any attempt to determine the method by which the 6BA liquid was made before the complaint was filed and that a simple phone call to Penn would have revealed that the method was not the same. As a result of this supposed failure to fully investigate before filing suit, Penn argues that Cambridge's attorney, in signing the complaint, answers to interrogatories and plaintiff's substantive response to Penn's motion for attorney fees, could not have reasonably believed its infringement allegations to be true at the time they were submitted and thus that the district court abused its discretion in denying Penn's motion for attorney fees. Cambridge maintains that it proceeded at all times in the good faith belief that Penn's product infringed the '152 patent, which it still purports to believe, and that this is not an exceptional case warranting § 285 attorney fees.
Penn cannot meet its burden of showing that the district court abused its discretion in denying the award of attorney fees to Penn after the dismissal of Cambridge's action. The record contains evidence upon which the district court "rationally could have based its decision" and Cambridge appears to have undertaken a reasonable pre-filing inquiry in preparing for and commencing this litigation. Cambridge had tested a sample of the allegedly infringing product and had commissioned further chemical analyses and acquired documentary evidence that appeared to confirm that the product alleged to infringe fell within the chemical specifications of the patented method. Without the aid of discovery, any further information was not practicably obtainable. Thus, Cambridge met the Rule 11 standard for filing and maintaining its case.
The award of attorney fees under § 285 is within the discretion of the court, Machinery Corp. v. Gullfiber AB, 774 F.2d 467, 471, 227 USPQ 368, 371 (Fed.Cir.1985), and the exceptional nature of the case must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Reactive Metals and Alloys Corp. v. ESM Inc., 769 F.2d 1578, 1582, 226 USPQ 821, 824 (Fed.Cir.1985). In the case of awards to prevailing accused infringers such as Penn, (and if Penn qualifies as a prevailing accused infringer), "exceptional cases" are normally those of bad faith litigation or those involving fraud or inequitable conduct by the patentee in procuring the patent. Standard Oil Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 455, 227 USPQ 293, 298 (Fed.Cir.1985). Thus, Penn bears the burden of establishing that Cambridge pursued this litigation in bad faith and that the district court clearly erred in failing to so find.
Penn has not established by clear and convincing evidence that this is an exceptional case under § 285 nor that Cambridge pursued this litigation in bad faith. Penn's bare assertion in its initial brief of entitlement under § 285 is not accompanied by any attempt at proving that this case is exceptional. Thus, Penn has not and cannot show that the district court abused its discretion in denying its claim for attorney fees.
In Asberry v. United States Postal Serv., 692 F.2d 1378, 215 USPQ 921 (Fed.Cir.1982), this court established the practice of vigorously enforcing Rule 38. See Fed.Cir.Rule 38, Practice Note. This court in Finch v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 926 F.2d 1574, 1579-80, 17 USPQ2d 1914, 1918 (Fed.Cir.1991), stated that the "frivolous as filed " standard consists of finding that "the judgment by the tribunal below was so plainly correct and the legal authority contrary to appella...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kilopass Tech., Inc. v. Sidense Corp.
...litigation, conduct that violates [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 11, or like infractions. See, e.g.,Cambridge Prods. Ltd. v. Penn Nutrients, Inc., 962 F.2d 1048, 1050–51 (Fed.Cir.1992); Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1551 (Fed.Cir.1989). Absent misconduct i......
-
Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Technologies Ag
...litigation or those involving fraud or inequitable conduct by the patentee in procuring the patent." Cambridge Prods., Ltd. v. Penn Nutrients, Inc., 962 F.2d 1048, 1050-51 (Fed.Cir.1992) (emphasis The fraud proved at trial is not the genre of inequitable conduct that usually is presented in......
-
Metso Minerals, Inc. v. Powerscreen Int'l Distribution Ltd.
...party bears the burden to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that a case is exceptional. Cambridge Prods., Ltd. v. Penn Nutrients, Inc., 962 F.2d 1048, 1050 (Fed.Cir.1992). “However, even in cases where there is clear and convincing evidence of exceptional conduct under Section 28......
-
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Rambus, Inc.
...fees under section 285 even after the underlying infringement claims had been dismissed. See Cambridge Products, Ltd. v. Penn Nutrients, Inc., 962 F.2d 1048, 1050 (Fed.Cir.1992); H.R. Technologies, Inc. v. Astechnologies, Inc., 275 F.3d 1378, 1386 (Fed.Cir.2002); Paragon Podiatry Lab. v. KL......
-
Chapter §20.06 Attorney Fees in Exceptional Cases
...Mfg., Inc. v. Dutailier Int'l, Inc., 393 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing, e.g., Cambridge Prods. Ltd. v. Penn Nutrients, Inc., 962 F.2d 1048, 1050–1051 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Beckman Instruments, Inc., v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1989)), abrogated by Octane Fitne......