InfoBionic wants fees of $2.9m in ‘exceptional’ CardioNet suit
Medical devices company InfoBionic has argued that it should be awarded nearly $2.9 million in fees for attorneys, expenses and expert witnesses.
In a memorandum submitted Tuesday, 21 December, InfoBionic has said that a dispute with Philips subsidiary CardioNet over heart monitor patents was “so exceptional” from the beginning, that it should be awarded a total of $2,878,320 in fees.
InfoBionic specifically has asked the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts to award $2,457,197 in attorneys’ fees, $181,840 in non-taxable expenses and $239,283 in expert fees.
The memorandum claims that this payout would be a “small fraction” of the more than $7 million in litigation costs, which InfoBionic claims is “nearly as much” as it spent on research and development.
CardioNet had sued InfoBionic in 2015, claiming that it had infringed its heart monitory patents through the sale of its MoMe Kardia remote heart monitory platform
The six patents were linked to methods and techniques for detecting and distinguishing atrial fibrillation, flutter and other forms of cardiac arrhythmia.
Over the past six years, InfoBionic has prevailed infringement cases levied against it and has convinced courts to axe the patents.
Federal courts, including the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ruled that several of the patents were invalid for lacking an “inventive concept” under the US Patent and Trademark Office’s Section 101 Alice for invention.
The litigation, InfoBionic said, was an attempt to “inhibit InfoBionic’s market entry by bleeding InfoBionic’s limited funding” by forcing it to defend against “meritless claims”.
Additionally, InfoBionic said that CardioNet appealed the invalidation of all but one claim of two of the expired patents even though “any possible damages were dwarfed by the cost of the appeal”.
“This calculated (mis)conduct exemplifies CardioNet’s exceptional behaviour and its counsel’s disregard for the orderly process of justice, and justifies holding them jointly and severally liable,” said InfoBionic.
