Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

ROSHKA DEWULF & PATTEN , PLC
ONE ARIZONA CENTER 400 EAST VAN BUREN STREET , SUITE 800 PHOENIX , ARIZONA 85004
TELEPHONE (602) 256- 6100 FACSIMILE (602) 256- 6800

Name and State Bar No.

John E. DeWulf, No. 006850 dewulf~rdp- law. com Darlene M. Wauro , No. 014697 wauro~rdp- law. com

Attorneys for Defendant Golden Peanut Company, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
LEMELSON MEDICAL , EDUCATION & RESEARCH FOUNDATION , LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
No. CIV 00- 0661- PHX- HRH

Plaintiff

ALCON LABORATORIES , INC. , et aI.
Defendants.
In response to Plaintiffs Opposition to

DEFENDANT GOLDEN PEANUT COMPANY , LLC' S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND RELATED NONTAXABLE EXPENSES
Motions for Attorneys ' Fees , Defendant

Golden Peanut Company, LLC (" Golden Peanut" ), hereby submits the following Reply
Brief, pursuant to Local Rule 54. 2.
As demonstrated in

Golden Peanut's " Memorandum in

Support of Motion for Award of Attorneys '
(hereinafter the " Motion

Fees and Related Non- Taxable Expenses
C. 9 285.

) and this Reply, this case is " exceptional" under 35 U.

Consequently, an award of attorneys ' fees and expenses is appropriate.

Judgment was entered in favor of Golden Peanut in this action as a result of
the Nevada District Court' s finding that the Lemelson patents asserted against Golden
Peanut in the present action are unenforceable under the equitable doctrine of prosecution
laches. (February 2 ,

2006 Order of the Court).

The

Nevada District Court' s finding of
Symbol

unenforceability was upheld by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Technologies

, Inc.

v.

Lemelson Medical

, Educ.

Research Foundation 422 F. 3d 1378

Case 2:00-cv-00661-HRH

Document 541

Filed 05/01/2006

Page 1 of 11

~ ~' ~' ~~~

";'

, "

(Fed. Cir. 2005),

amended on rehearing in part by, Symbol Technologies
Research Foundation,
Limited Partnership,

, Inc.

v.

Lemelson

Medical

, Education

429 F. 3d 1051 (Fed.

Cir. 2005).

As the prevailing party in this action , Golden Peanut is entitled to recover its
attorneys ' fees and expenses. 35 U. C. 9 285. In the interest of justice , an award of all

sums that Golden Peanut has incurred in preparation for and in the performance of legal
services relating to this case , including those post-judgment fees and expenses incurred in
connection with the filing of the Motion
A. Hormel , is appropriate.

See Central Soya Co. ,

Inc.

v.

Geo.

Co. 723 F. 2d 1573 , 1578 (Fed.

Cir. 1983). Fee shifting is warranted to
s unjust

compensate Golden Peanut for its monetary outlays arising from Lemelson
00 0

assertion of its portfolio of unenforceable U. S. patents.

~"TO
~ ~i-'6:;;6

i-' ~

:3 ~ ~U)

'" "" 00

The Nevada District Court opinion provided clear and convincing
sufficient to find the present action an exceptional case under 35 U.
Technologies
, Inc. v. C. 9 285.

evidence

'"'" ~;;JN 'DN ... 0 p;: H ~ "" Z:3 ~ Q:'E P'1
~ ~;:-Z~

~uZ08

See Symbol
301

~~ 14

Lemelson Medical

, Educ.

Research Foundation, Ltd

~ o
Vl

:I: 0

~t;;tJii113 ;;i g;i-'t;j ~

Supp. 2d 1147 , 1153 (D. Nev. 2004). The Nevada District Court clearly and forcefully

concluded that

Lemelson s 18 to 39 year delay in filing and prosecuting the asserted

claims under the fourteen patents- in-suit after they were first purportedly disclosed in the
1954 and 1956 applications was umeasonable and unjustified.
301 F. Supp. 2d
at 1155.

Plaintiff cannot and does
accordingly, that "

not

dispute this finding.

The Nevada District Court

held

the doctrine

of prosecution laches renders the asserted claims

unenforceable.

Id.
the doctrine of prosecution laches
, Inc. v.

As outlined by the Federal Circuit ,

has

been a part of patent law since
Medical 277 F. 3d
1361 ,

the 1920'

Symbol Technologies

Lemelson

1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The Federal Circuit concluded that " There

is nothing in the legislative history to suggest that Congress did not intend to carry forward
the defense of prosecution laches (with the passage of the

1952 Patent Act).

To the

contrary, a careful reading of the history and commentary on the 1952 Act shows an intent
Case 2:00-cv-00661-HRH Document 541 Filed 05/01/2006 Page 2 of 11

~ ~' ~' ~~~

";'

to maintain the defense.

Id.

at 1365. Further ,

the Federal Circuit confirmed that the
Id.

nonprecedential decisions cited by Plaintiff did not overturn this established precedent.

at 1366-

68. Accordingly, Plaintiff did not have good reason to believe that prosecution

laches did not exist , as a matter of law , when it filed the present action. The Nevada

District Court described the substantial evidence supporting its finding of laches:

The circumstances warranting application of prosecution laches here includes
not only the delay between the filing of the original application

and the

issuance of the claims , and the delay in presenting the claims to the patent

00 0

~"TO
~ ~i-'6:;;6

office for the first time , but the following combination of factors asserted by Symbol and Cognex which the Court finds are strongly supported by the evidence: (1) Mr. Lemelson s original disclosures were made public in the 1960' s and those patents expired by the early 1980' s; (2) before the asserted claims were filed numerous articles and patents describing machine vision and bar code scanning were published , and commercial products were developed and marketed; (3) Mr. Lemelson was aware of the developments in the machine vision and bar code fields , and yet he still waited; (4) Mr. Lemelson systematically extended the pendency of his applications by sitting on his
fIghts , and sequentially filing one application
at a time so that he could

i-' ~

:3 ~ ~U)

'" "" 00

'"'" ~;;JN 'DN ... 0 p;: H ~ "" Z:3 ~ Q:'E P'1
~ ~;:-Z~

~uZ08

maintain copendency while waiting for viable commercial systems to be designed and marketed; and , (5) Mr. Lemelson (and his new counsel) then
drafted and prosecuted hundreds of new claims in the late 1980' sand 1990' s specifically worded to cover those commercial systems.

~~ 14

~ o
Vl

:I: 0

~t;;tJii113 ;;i g;i-'t;j ~

301 F. Supp. 2d

at 1156.

In view of this

compelling evidence , the Federal

Circuit expanded the Nevada

District Court' s holding to apply to not just those claims that were at issue at the Nevada

District Court , but to all claims
the Federal Circuit held:

of the 14 asserted patents. 429 F.

3d 1052. Significantly,

umeasonably long period of time , and the delays in prosecution to issuance of the asserted 76 claims applied to all of the remaining this exceptional case prejudice to the public as a whole has been shown here in the long period of time during which parties , including (Symbol and its coplaintiffs), have invested in the technology described in the delayed patents. These are sufficient bases to extend the district court' s laches holding of unenforceability of the 76 asserted claims to all of the claims of the asserted patents.
claims. Accordingly, Id.

(A)ll of the subject

matter in the patents in

suit was pending

for an

(emphasis added).

The considerable evidence presented supports a finding by this

Court that this case is " exceptional" under 35 U. C. 9 285 and that the award of attorneys
fees is appropriate.

Case 2:00-cv-00661-HRH

Document 541

Filed 05/01/2006

Page 3 of 11

~ ~' ~' ~~~

";'

The statutory purpose of (the award of attorneys ' fees in patent cases) is to

reach cases where the interest of justice warrants

fee-shifting.

Thus the trial court has

broad discretion in the criteria by which it determines whether to award attorney fees.
Brooktree Corp. v.

Advanced Micro Devices , Inc. 977 F. 2d

1555 , 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

Contrary to Plaintiffs assertion , the Federal Circuit's precedent does not prevent this Court
from awarding attorneys ' fees in this case. In view of the totality of the circumstances
there is considerable evidence that Plaintiffs conduct before the U. S. Patent and
Trademark Office warrants equitable relief.

See Symbol Technologies 422 F. 3d

at 1385-

86.

Additionally, Plaintiff s shotgun
00 0

approach to the

present action further

supports the award of attorneys ' fees. In its Opposition , Plaintiff provided no evidence to
suggest that it conducted a detailed pre- filing investigation with respect to each of the 400
defendants , including Golden Peanut ,
April 14 , 2000.
accused in the five actions filed in this Court on

~"TO
~ ~i-'6:;;6

i-' ~

:3 ~ ~U)

'" "" 00

'"'" ~;;JN 'DN ... 0 p;: H ~ "" Z:3 ~ Q:'E P'1
~ ~;:-Z~

~uZ08

~~ 14

Similarly, Plaintiff did not dispute that it used the present

action as

~ o
Vl

:I: 0

~t;;tJii113 ;;i g;i-'t;j ~

leverage to convince unsuspecting defendants to take a license to its
unenforceable U. S. patents ,

portfolio of

rather than be faced

with the

uncertainty and expense of

complex patent litigation.
F or

at least the above reasons ,

in the interest of justice , the award of

attorneys ' fees and related non- taxable expenses is appropriate in this action.

DATED this 1st day of May, 2006.

ROSHKA DeWULF & PATTEN, PLC
sf John E. DeWulf John E. DeWulf Darlene M. Wauro One Arizona Center 400 East Van Buren Street , Suite 800 Phoenix , Arizona 85004
Attorneys for Defendant Golden Peanut Company, LLC

Case 2:00-cv-00661-HRH

Document 541

Filed 05/01/2006

Page 4 of 11

~ ~' ~' ~~~

";'

CERTIFICA TE OF SERVICE
I hereby

certify that on May 1 ,

2006 , I electronically transmitted the

attached

document to the Clerk' s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a

Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:
Louis 1. Hoffman , Esq.
HOFFMAN & ZUR

14614 North Kierland Boulevard , Suite 300 Scottsdale , AZ 85254 ih~patentit. com

Victoria Gruver Curtin , Esq.
VICTORIA GRUVER CURTIN PLC

14614 North Kierland Boulevard , Suite 300 Scottsdale , AZ 85254 vgc~patentit. com
00 0

Peter C. Warner , Esq.
PETER C. WARNER PC

~"TO
~ ~i-'6:;;6

i-' ~

:3 ~ ~U)

'" "" 00

'"'" ~;;JN 'DN ... 0 p;: H ~ "" Z:3 ~ Q:'E P'1
~ ~;:-Z~

~uZ08

1723 West 4th Street Tempe , AZ 85281- 2404
pcw~warnerpatents. com
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Lemelson

~~ 14
Charles Bradley, Esq.

~ o
Vl

:I: 0

~t;;tJii113 ;;i g;i-'t;j ~

Attorney at Law 33 Mt. Green Road Croton-on- Hudson , NY 10520 cwbradle verizon. net
Attorneys or Defendants Alcon Laboratories,

Inc. and Nestle USA , Inc.

Jonathan M. James , Esq.
PERKINS COlE BROWN & , BAIN P A

2901 North Central Avenue O. Box 400 Phoenix , AZ 85001- 0400
11 ames~perkinscoie. com Attorneys for Defendants Allied Domecq, Ocean Spray and Dole Foods Company

Jennifer Van Kirk , Esq.
LEWIS & ROCA

40 North Central Avenue Phoenix , AZ 85004- 4429 JV ankirk~lrlaw. com Attorneys for Alpharma, Inc. , Diageo PLC, Guinness LTD, Kraft Foods Inc. Miller Brewing Company, Phillip Morris Company, Inc.
, and United Distillers

Vintners Ltd.

Case 2:00-cv-00661-HRH

Document 541

Filed 05/01/2006

Page 5 of 11

~ ~' ~' ~~~

";'

Don Bivens , Esq. Jennifer P. Nore , Esq.
BIVENS & NORE , P.

3003 North Central Avenue , Suite 1200 Phoenix , AZ 85012- 2915 dwbivens~bivens- nore. com

Ralph C. Francis , Esq.
FRANCIS LAW GROUP 1942 Embarcadero

Oakland , CA 94606 rcf~francislaw. com
Attorneys for Defendants Amway Corporation and Glaxo Wellcome, Inc.
Michael 1. O' Connor , Esq.
JENNINGS , STROUSS & SALMON

00 0

Attorneys or Defendant Anheuser-Busch
Mark A. Nadeau , Esq.
SQUIRE SANDERS & DEMPSEY , LLP

The Collier Center , 11 th Floor 201 East Washington Street Phoenix , AZ 85004- 2385 moconnor . sslaw. com

Companies

~"TO
~ ~i-'6:;;6

i-' ~

:3 ~ ~U)

'" "" 00

'"'" ~;;JN 'DN ... 0 p;: H ~ "" Z:3 ~ Q:'E P'1
~ ~;:-Z~

~uZ08

~~ 14

Two Renaissance Square 40 North Central Avenue , Suite 2700 Phoenix , AZ 85004- 4441
mnadeau~ssd. com

~ o
Vl

:I: 0

~t;;tJii113 ;;i g;i-'t;j ~

Attorneys for Defendants Campbell Soup, Hershey, Tyson , Lee Corporation Hormel, IBP, Dean Foods, Lorillard, Gilster-Mary Lee and McCormick

Brett L. Dunkelman , Esq.
OSBORN MALEDON , P.

2929 North Central Avenue , Suite 2100 Phoenix , AZ 85012- 2794 bdunkelman~omlaw. com
Attorneys for

Defendant Chiquita Brands International, Inc.

Bennett Evan Cooper , Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON , LLP

Collier Center 201 East Washington , Suite 1600 Phoenix , AZ 85004- 2382
bcooper~steptoe. com

Robert A. Schroeder , Esq.
BINGHAM , MCCUTCHEN , LLP

355 South Grand Avenue , Suite 4400

Los Angeles , CA 90071
Robert. Schroeder~bingham. com

Attorneys for Defendants ConAgra, Inc. and Sunkist Growers, Inc.

Case 2:00-cv-00661-HRH

Document 541

Filed 05/01/2006

Page 6 of 11

~ ~' ~' ~~~

";'

James W. Armstrong, Esq.
SACKS TIERNEY , P A

4250 North Civic Center Boulevard , 4th Floor Scottsdale , AZ 85251 J ames. Armstrong~sackstierney. com Attorneys for Defendant Del Laboratories, Inc.
David Berten , Esq.
COMPETITION LAW GROUP

120 South State Street , Suite 300 Chicago , IL 60603
berten~competelaw. com
Attorneys for

Defendant Del Monte Foods

Doug Seitz , Esq.
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. One Arizona Center 400 East Van Buren Phoenix , AZ 85004- 2202 dcseitz~swlaw. com

00 0

Attorneys for

~"TO
~ ~i-'6:;;6

Defendant Forest Laboratories, McKee Foods Corporation , Nabisco Holdings, and WLR Foods
John W. Kozak , Esq. David M. Airan , Esq.
LEYDIG , VOlT & MAYER

i-' ~

:3 ~ ~U)

'" "" 00

'"'" ~;;JN 'DN ... 0 p;: H ~ "" Z:3 ~ Q:'E P'1
~ ~;:-Z~

~uZ08

~~ 14

~t;;tJii113 ~ o ;;i g;i-'t;j ~
Vl

:I: 0

Two Prudential Plaza , Suite 4900 Chicago , IL 60601- 6780 kozak Ie di . com dairan Ie di . com Attorneys for Defendants Frito-Lay and Pepsico
Timothy 1. Burke , Esq. FENNEMORE CRAIG , P. 3003 North Central Avenue , Suite 2600 Phoenix , AZ 85012- 2913

tburke~fclaw. com
Attorneys for Defendants Brown

Williamson Tobacco Company

James R. Higgins , Esq.
MIDDLETON & REUTLINGER, PSC 401 South 4th Avenue , Suite 2500

Louisville , Kentucky 40202- 3410 ihiggins~middreut. com
Attorneys for Defendants Brown

Williamson Tobacco Company and H.J. Heinz

James F. Polese , Esq.
POLESE , PIETZSCH , WILLIAMS & NOLAN , P A

2702 North Third Street , Suite 3000 Phoenix , AZ 85004- 4607
polese~ppwn. com

Case 2:00-cv-00661-HRH

Document 541

Filed 05/01/2006

Page 7 of 11

~ ~' ~' ~~~

";'

John W. Pelino , Esq. Howard A. Rosenthal , Esq. Edward L Ciemniecki , Esq.
PELINO & LENTZ , P.

1650 Market Street , 32nd Floor Philadelphia , P A 19103- 7393
e li

~ li

elciemnieckl elino. com Attorneys for Keystone Foods Corp.
CASEBOLT , GERMAINE & DRIGGS , P. LC.

~~ om

Sanford 1. Germaine , Esq.

11811 North Tatum Boulevard , Suite 3051 Phoenix , AZ 85028
sgermpc~aoI. com
Attorneys for Liggett

Group Inc.

Charles W. Wirkin , Esq.
GUST ROSENFIELD ,
00 0

PLC

~"TO
~ ~i-'6:;;6

i-' ~

:3 ~ ~U)

'" "" 00

201 West Washington , Suite 800 Phoenix , AZ 85004 cwirken~gustlaw. com Attorneys for Defendant Cargill
Steven M. Weinberg, Esq.
WEINBERG LEGAL GROUP

'"'" ~;;JN 'DN ... 0 p;: H ~ "" Z:3 ~ Q:'E P'1
~ ~;:-Z~

~uZ08

~~ 14

Biltmore Financial Center
2390 East Camelback Road , Suite 250

~t;;tJii113 ~ o ;;i g;i-'t;j ~
Vl

:I: 0

Phoenix , AZ 85016 weinber s tlaw. com
Attorneys or Defendant Seneca

Foods

Timothy Casey, Esq.

One Arizona Center 400 East Van Buren Phoenix , AZ 85004- 2202
tcasey~swlaw. com

SNELL & WILMER LLP.

Aaron Myers , Esq.
ROBINS , KAPLAN , MILLER & CIRESI , L.

2800 LaSalle Plaza 800 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis , MN 55402- 2015
aamyers~rkmc. com
Attorneys for

Defendant Schwan s Sales Enterprises, Inc.

Case 2:00-cv-00661-HRH

Document 541

Filed 05/01/2006

Page 8 of 11

~ ~' ~' ~~~

";'

With a copy served by u. s. mail to the following who are not registered
CM/ECF System:

participants of the

James B. Bear , Esq. Paul A. Stewart , Esq.
KNOBBE , MARTENS , OLSON & BEAR, LLP

2040 Main Street , 14th Floor Irvine , CA 92614- 7216

David K. Callahan
KIRKLAND & ELLIS , LLP

200 East Randolph Street , Suite 5800 Chicago , IL 60601
Annamarie A. Daley
ROBINS , KAPLAN , MILLER & CIRESI , LLP

2800 LaSalle Plaza 800 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis , MN 55402- 2015
00 0

~"TO
~ ~i-'6:;;6

Albert E. Fey, Esq.

i-' ~

~ ~U)

:3 '" "" 00

Charles Quinn , Esq.
FISH & NEA VE

'"'" ~;;JN 'DN ... 0 p;: H ~ "" Z:3 ~ Q:'E P'1
~ ~;:-Z~

~uZ08

1251 Avenue of the Americas New York , NY 10020
Jesse 1. Jenner , Esq.
ROPES & GRAY LLP

~~ 14

~ o
Vl

:I: 0

~t;;tJii113 ;;i g;i-'t;j ~

1251 Avenue of the Americas New York , NY 10020

Christopher T. Griffith , Esq. Wesley O. Mueller , Esq.
LEYDIG , VOlT & MAYER

Two Prudential Plaza , Suite 4900 Chicago , IL 60601- 6780
Roy E. Hofer , Esq. Gustavo Siller , Jr. , Esq.
BRINKS , HOFER, GILSON & LIONE

NBC Tower , Suite 3600 455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive Chicago , IL 60611- 5599
Joseph P. Lavelle , Esq. Laura C. Miller , Esq. Peter E. Moll , Esq.
HOWREY , SIMON , ARNOLD & WHITE LLP

1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington , DC 20004- 2402

Case 2:00-cv-00661-HRH

Document 541

Filed 05/01/2006

Page 9 of 11

~ ~' ~' ~~~

";'

Gary D. Lueck , Esq.
BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP 355 South Grand Avenue , Suite 4400

Los Angeles , CA 90071

Kevin M. Rose , Esq.
WHARTON , ALDHIZER & WEAVER, PLC

100 South Mason Street Harrisonburg, VA 22801

John F. Salazar , Esq.
MIDDLETON & REUTLINGER, PSC 401 South 4th Avenue , Suite 2500

Louisville , Kentucky 40202- 3410
Martin W. Schiffmiller , Esq. Lisa A. Pieroni , Esq.

Floor New York , NY 10017
489 5
, 1 ih

KIRSCliSTEIN OTTINGER ISRAEL & SCHIFFMILLER, PC t Avenue

00 0

~"TO
~ ~i-'6:;;6

Regis E. Slutter , Esq.
BURNS DOANE SWECKER & MATHIS LLP

i-' ~

~ ~U)

:3 '" "" 00

'"'" ~;;JN 'DN ... 0 p;: H ~ "" Z:3 ~ Q:'E P'1
~ ~;:-Z~

~uZ08

O. Box 1404 Alexandria , VA 22313 - 1404

~~ 14

~t;;tJii113 ~ o ;;i g;i-'t;j ~
Vl

Kevin S. Sprecher , Esq. Ann G. Robinson , Esq.
FROST BROWN TODD LLC

:I: 0

2200 PNCth Street Center
201 East 5

Cincinnati , OH 45202
Jay Todd Stewart , Esq.
PERKINS COlE BROWN & BAIN P A

O. Box 400 Phoenix , Arizona 85001- 0400

Stephen P. Swinton , Esq.
COOLEY GODW ARD LLP

4401 Eastgate Mall San Diego , CA 92121- 1909
William M. Wesley, Esq. Christopher C. Winslade , Esq.
McANDREWS HELD & MALLOY LTD.

500 West Madison , Suite 3400 Chicago , IL 60661

Case 2:00-cv-00661-HRH

Document 541

Filed 05/01/2006

Page 10 of 11

~ ~' ~' ~~~

";'

And a courtesy copy mailed via priority mail to:

The Honorable H. Russel Holland United States District Court 222 West 7th Avenue , Unit 54 Anchorage , AK 99513

s/John E. DeWulf

00 0

~"TO
~ ~i-'6:;;6

i-' ~

:3 ~ ~U)

'" "" 00

'"'" ~;;JN 'DN ... 0 p;: H ~ "" Z:3 ~ Q:'E P'1
~ ~;:-Z~

~uZ08

~~ 14

~ o
Vl

:I: 0

~t;;tJii113 ;;i g;i-'t;j ~

Case 2:00-cv-00661-HRH

Document 541

Filed 05/01/2006

Page 11 of 11