Simon Property Group and Blackhawk Network won a ruling allowing them to recover reasonable defence fees and expenses from Alexsam in a patent dispute involving gift-card systems. The September order did not set the amount.
Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne granted the companies' motions in a September 16 memorandum order [S01], filed September 17 in the Eastern District of Texas. The ruling concerns the cost of the litigation after an earlier finding of non-infringement.
Alexsam had accused Simon products, including Visa and American Express gift cards, and Blackhawk's gift-card network of infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,000,608. Its claims centred on a multifunction card system and the use of existing point-of-sale equipment.
The September order finds Alexsam's litigation conduct exceptional under the patent-law provision allowing reasonable attorney fees. Payne focused on the company's infringement position and its treatment of an agreed interpretation of the point-of-sale limitation. The court said it did not need to resolve a separate dispute about the effect of earlier patent-invalidity litigation.
Simon requested $1.8 million in defence costs. Blackhawk sought $1,340,628.80 in attorney fees and $95,609.49 in expert fees, a total of $1,436,238.29. Those are the companies' requests, not amounts fixed by the order.
Defence costs requested in the gift-card patent dispute
Amounts recorded as the defendants’ requests in the September16 memorandum order, not the amounts awarded.
USD
Tap or hover for details. All values are also available in the data table.
Source
Simon’s request is reported in the order as USD1.8 million. Blackhawk’s total combines USD1,340,628.80 attorney fees and USD95,609.49 expert fees. These requests are not a judicially fixed award or confirmed payments; the September order required further supporting accounts.
Show data tableHide data table
| Category | Requested defence costs |
|---|---|
| Simon Property Group | 1,800,000.00 USD |
| Blackhawk Network | 1,436,238.29 USD |
Payne said the defendants had not yet supplied the evidence or agreement needed to determine the award. He directed them to give Alexsam a detailed accounting within 30 days and then try to agree a figure. If they cannot, the companies must seek a further ruling supported by evidence.
The new development therefore concerns fee recovery in the existing dispute. It does not create a new patent infringement finding against the gift-card operators or establish that the requested sums have been paid.
The order also breaks out USD100,000 in expert fees and USD30,000 in e-discovery vendor costs within Simon’s request, with the remainder described as attorneys’ fees. The requested totals therefore include more than lawyers’ bills alone. The September ruling’s direction to substantiate the costs is distinct from deciding entitlement to reasonable recovery.