shutterstock_570474040_nuangthong
28 January 2020PatentsRory O'Neill

US green card maker wins attorneys’ fees over ‘weak’ patent suit

US government supplier HID Global last week won its attorneys’ fees after a German rival claimed that US permanent resident cards, or ‘green cards’, infringed its patent.

In its decision, issued January 24, the US Court of Federal Claims ruled that the case was “exceptional” under section 285 of the US Patent Act.

German security company Giesecke & Devrient filed its original patent infringement complaint in November 2017 against the US government. The German company accused the government of infringing its patents through contactless data carriers and devices, such as US passport cards.

The complaint also included permanent resident cards, commonly known as green cards, and global entry cards, which are provided to the US government by Swedish-owned HID.

According to the court, Giesecke effectively claimed that its patent covered the devices’ compliance with the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) requirements on machine-readable travel documents.

Giesecke argued that this was not the sole basis on which the products could infringe its patent, but was merely included as an example of an infringing product.

But according to the court, Giesecke offered “no other theory or factual allegations suggesting how the card-based products might infringe the ’119 patent other than [their] compliance with ICAO requirements”.

The claims were dropped after a year, but HID chose to pursue Giesecke for attorneys’ fees, arguing that the case was so weak that it qualified as “exceptional” under section 285.

US law stipulates that each party must bear its own attorneys’ fees, with the exception of a prevailing party in a case deemed to be “exceptional” under this provision.

In Friday’s judgment, the court chastised Giesecke for failing to produce any evidence detailing its pre-filing investigation of the supposed infringement.

Costly litigation fees incurred by HID could have been avoided if GIesecke had performed even a “cursory review” of the Swedish-owned company’s products, the court found.

Did you enjoy reading this story?  Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox.

Today's top stories:

Artist groups attack UK govt's decision to ignore article 13

TikTok, Merlin sign global licensing deal

UKIPO’s gender pay gap reflects lack of women in STEM, office says

Already registered?

Login to your account

To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.

Two Weeks Free Trial

For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk