In a recent patent infringement case, Judge J. Paul Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) awarded attorneys’ fees under the Patent Act because the case was “exceptional,” but denied fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the court’s inherent authority based on a lack of “clear evidence” that the plaintiff acted in “bad faith.” Linfo IP, LLC v. Aero Glob., LLC, No. 24-cv-2952 (JPO), 2025 WL 2924439, at *3–7 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2025).
Plaintiff Linfo IP, LLC (“Linfo”) sued Defendant Aero Global, LLC (“Aero Global”) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,092,428 (the “’428 Patent”), which is directed to “discovering and presenting information in text content with different view formats.” Id. at *1. After Linfo filed its suit, Judge Furman held in another case that the ’428 Patent is invalid. Id. Then, in Linfo’s case against Aero Global, Judge Oetken granted Aero Global’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that Linfo was collaterally estopped from asserting patent infringement. Id. Aero Global sought attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the court’s inherent authority. Id. at *2.
- Attorneys’ Fees Under 35 U.S.C. § 285
The court granted Aero Global “reasonable attorney fees” under Section 285 of the Patent Act, which courts may award in “exceptional cases.” Id. at *5; see also 35 U.S.C. § 285. An “exceptional case” is “simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position . . . or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated.” Linfo, 2025 WL 2924439, at *2 (quoting Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545, 554 (2014)). The court reasoned that the ’428 Patent was “objectively invalid” because “[a] litany of cases . . . should have made clear to Linfo and its counsel that [the patent] was directed precisely to the kind of abstract concept that [the U.S. Supreme Court has] deemed unpatentable”; that Linfo had failed to plead multiple elements of willful, contributory, and induced infringement; that Linfo had “vigorously assert[ed] the ’428 Patent” nearly eighty times in four years while “virtually never reaching the merits”; and that Linfo’s counsel had a “long history of litigation abuses,” including bringing several frivolous lawsuits. Id. at *4–5. Based on these circumstances, the court concluded that the case was “exceptional,” warranting an award of attorneys’ fees under the Patent Act. Id. at *5.
- No Attorneys’ Fees Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 or the Court’s Inherent Authority
The court, however, did not award attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 or the court’s inherent authority. To impose such sanctions, “a court must find clear evidence that (1) the offending party’s claims were entirely without color, and (2) the claims were brought in bad faith—that is, motivated by improper purposes such as harassment or delay.” Id. at *6 (quoting Huebner v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 897 F.3d 42, 55 (2d Cir. 2018)). Although Linfo’s claims had no colorable basis, the court concluded that there was no “clear evidence” of bad faith. Id. The court explained that, although “several features of th[e] case [were] consistent with bad faith litigation, the record [did] not contain clear indicia of [Lindo’s counsel’s] subjective intent.” Id. Additionally, Judge Furman concluded that the ’428 Patent was invalid after Lindo filed its case against Aero Global, “weaken[ing] any inference of subjective bad faith.” Id. Thus, although Aero Global was entitled to attorneys’ fees under the Patent Act, it was not similarly entitled to fees under Section 1927 or the court’s inherent authority.
