{"id":1376,"date":"2017-01-25T14:13:21","date_gmt":"2017-01-25T19:13:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1376"},"modified":"2017-02-01T10:49:37","modified_gmt":"2017-02-01T15:49:37","slug":"are-all-troll-cases-exceptional","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1376","title":{"rendered":"Are All Troll Cases Exceptional?"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Iris Connex, LLC, v. Dell, Inc.<\/em>, [2:15-cv-1915-JRG] (January 25, 2016), district judge Gilstrap, after granting summary judgment to Dell, awarded attorneys fees, noting Dell’s arguments that Iris Connex\u2019s claim construction position was unsupportable, that its infringement\u00a0position was not plausible, that its litigation was primarily settlement driven; and Iris Connex was an intentionally empty shell\u00a0company and, as a consequence, had no capacity to pay such fees even if the case were ultimately\u00a0declared to be exceptional.<\/p>\n

Judge Gilstrap took the extraordinary step of ordering further discovery into the\u00a0extended identity of Iris Connex, because the court was concerned that the structure\u00a0would effectively avoid any deterrence from an award of attorneys fees. \u00a0In Judge Gilstrap’s words “[a]s the post-judgment discovery progressed, it became obvious that Iris Connex was\u00a0not simply a non-practicing entity seeking to vindicate its patent rights\u2014albeit with an
\nexceptionally bad infringement case.” \u00a0Judge Gilstrap found that\u00a0Iris Connex is the first\u00a0level of two shell corporations which were intended to shield the real actor, Mr. Brian Yates, from\u00a0personal liability. Judge Gilstrap\u00a0found that Mr. Yates and those in active concert with him\u00a0exploited the corporate form to operate largely in secret and to insulate the true party in interest\u00a0from the risk associated with dubious infringement suits\u2014that risk being fee shifting under Section\u00a0285.<\/p>\n

Judge Gilstrap made 28 specific findings, including:<\/p>\n