On May 15, 2018, Judge Kinkeade denied (without prejudice to refiling) SAP’s Motion for Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees (Order available here). In this patent case, SAP prevailed against InvestPic, and Judge Kinkeade found the case exceptional, such that SAP was entitled to recover its attorney’s fees. SAP sought $614,568.56. But Judge Kinkeade denied the motion “because SAP has failed to provide the Court with sufficient reliable evidence to show that the requested fees are reasonable and necessary.”
Judge Kinkeade first outlined the standard for judging the reasonableness of fees:
The applicant for fees has the burden of establishing entitlement to an award of fees, documenting the appropriate hours expended, and the appropriate billing rates. The applicant for fees can only meet this burden by presenting adequate evidence to the court so that the court can determine what hours and rates should be used to determine the lodestar. The court must not only determine whether or not the total hours claimed are reasonable but must also determine whether particular hours claimed were reasonably expended. Vague time entries and time entries that do not illuminate the subject matter of what was done do not assist a court in making a determination that the claimed time was reasonably expended. Litigants take their chances when submitting such fee applications. To determine reasonable rates, a court considers the attorneys’ regular rates as well as the prevailing rates in the area. The applicant has the burden to show that rates used in determining the lodestar are reasonable rates, which can be shown through affidavits of the attorneys involved in the case and through affidavits of other attorneys practicing in the relevant area.
(citations and quotations omitted).
The Court found SAP’s evidence insufficient to award fees:
- Beyond the general statements in SAP’s attorney-fee declaration that the lodestar, hours and rates were reasonable, there was “[no] information to support these conclusory statements.” The declarant did not provide a “description of the number of hours and rates that he used to determine his asserted lodestar. Instead, [the declarant] simply concludes that this lodestar amount is reasonable. The declaration is totally lacking as to any description of the methodology used to calculate the asserted lodestar and how [the declarant] came to this lodestar is not readily apparent from the submitted invoices.”
- “[M]any of the time entries are too vague for the Court to determine if this time was reasonably expended on this matter. For example, after redaction some time entries read: ‘Research re a XXXXXX’; ‘Research applicability of XXXXXX’; Attention to XXXXXX’; and ‘Confer with team re XXXXXX’. Entries like these are so vague that the Court cannot make a determination that the time claimed was reasonably expended. In certain situations, it might be appropriate for a Court to reduce a lodestar to account for vague entries like this.”
- “There is also insufficient evidence for the Court to make a determination of the reasonableness of the rates charged by the various people who worked on this matter. The [] Declaration provides information about [the declarant]’s qualifications and experience. This is some indication of what his reasonable hourly rate should be. This is not an indication of what the reasonable rate for all the other individuals involved should be. [The declaration] is silent as to the background and experience of any of these other people who spent time on this case and what their reasonable rate should be based on that background and experience. [The declarant] does not even refer to having any particular knowledge of this information or as to the person’s role in the matter. This information is also not readily apparent from the submitted invoices. For example, the [first law firm’s] invoices list hourly rates for the people with time entries, which range from $200.00 per hour to 1,100.00 per hour, but they do not give any indication as to if those people are partners, associates, paralegals, or other support staff. The [second law firm’s] invoices suffer from the same problem. The [third law firm], on the other hand, suffer from the opposite problem. These invoices identify the roles of the people who worked on the matter, but they do not provide the hourly rates charged by these people. Without further evidence, the Court is unable to determine the reasonableness of the rates charged in this matter.”
Judge Kinkeade gave SAP 20 days to refile its Motion for Attorneys’ Fees.