In The News . . . . July 2014 California Lawyer Talks About Patent Trolls And Criminal Restitution Orders—With Attorney’s Fees/Costs Being In The Wings, Of Course

Patent Trolls First.

     Although patent troll legislation has stalled for now in Congress, the dual U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1749 (2014) and Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1744 (2014) may have given some impetus to defendants obtaining fees against unsuccessful trolls in patent infringement suits. That follows for the “exceptional case” definition under the patent fee-shifting provision, with some appellate rulings remanding to consider attorney’s fees on behalf of the defense against unsuccessful patent trolls. (See, e.g., SiteUpdate Solutions, LLC v. Accor North America, Inc., 2014 WL 1910424 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also FindTheBest.com, Inc. v. Lumen View Tech, LLC, 2014 WL 2440867 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2014).)

Criminal Restitution Orders Next.

     A criminal restitution order can provide for recovery of attorney’s fees incurred to establishe the victim’s right to restitution. (Penal Code, § 1202.4(f)(3)(H).) This means that the victim may recover attorney’s fees incurred in a related civil case. (People v. Pinedo, 60 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1406 (1998).) A good illustration is provided in the article, and the article appears to suggest that a settlement in a civil action cannot release a restitution order obligation and is not bankruptcy dischargeable—but you read the article to see what conclusions you reach in this area of the law.

Scroll to Top