Lu v. Hyper Bicycles, Inc.

Lu v. Hyper Bicycles, Inc. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's § 285 exceptional-case finding and attorney fee award, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion where the record showed plaintiff failed to conduct any meaningful discovery, submitted cursory summary judgment briefing, violated local rules, and possessed no evidence of infringing sales from at least January 3, 2022 onward. Reinforces that a plaintiff's failure to conduct discovery, absence of evidence of infringement, and dilatory litigation conduct can independently support an exceptional-case finding and a fee award cut off from the date counsel should have known the claims were meritless. Affirmed Plaintiff filed a patent infringement suit in 2020, lost on summary judgment, and had that loss affirmed; defendant then moved for § 285 fees. District court found the case exceptional based on bad-faith prosecution and unnecessary cost inflation: plaintiff sought four discovery extensions but never propounded written discovery, took no depositions, and designated no experts. Plaintiff's own discovery responses admitted he had no knowledge of actual infringing sales and no records identifying infringing products from at least January 3, 2022—the date the court used as the fee-award cutoff. Federal Circuit reviewed all aspects of the § 285 determination for abuse of discretion and found none, deferring to the district court's prolonged familiarity with the case under Highmark. Arguments raised for the first time in plaintiff's reply brief were not considered, consistent with Federal Circuit practice. attorney fees / sanctions non-precedential infringement waiver / forfeiture attorney fees / sanctions non-precedential infringement waiver / forfeiture attorney fees / sanctions non-precedential infringement