Summary Judgment and Treble Damages Granted, Denial of Attorney Fees in AAT Bioquest, Inc. v. Texas Fluorescence Laboratories, Inc.

December 3, 2015—Plaintiff AAT Bioquest, Inc. accused Defendant Texas Fluorescence Laboratories, Inc. of infringing its patent: U.S. Patent No. 8,779,165 titled “Fluorescent ion indicators and their applications.” The court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on infringement because “[Defendant] repeatedly failed to present evidence related to the basic legal standards for its defenses” (page 18). The court also granted Plaintiff’s motion for treble damages because Defendant’s infringement was willful and continued even after the court issued a permanent injunction. However, the court denied Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees even though some parts of the case was exceptional. The court stated that “[a] determination that portions of this case are exceptional does not automatically mean that [plaintiff] is entitled to attorneys’ fees” (page 27). The court stated that attorneys’ fees were not necessary for “compensation, punishment, and deterrence” because the treble damages award is “more than five times the actual revenue [Defendant] made from sales of [the accused product], and roughly equivalent to [Plaintiff’s] 2014 total revenue” (page 27). The case was pending in California Northern District and captioned AAT Bioquest, Inc. v. Texas Fluorescence Laboratories, Inc., 4:14-cv-03909.

By: Una Fan