- within Intellectual Property topic(s)
- with readers working within the Advertising & Public Relations industries
In EscapeX IP, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 24-1201 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 25, 2025), the Federal Circuit upheld the district court's award of attorneys' fees against EscapeX IP, LLC, after finding its patent infringement claims against Google's were frivolous.
EscapeX sued Google, asserting that Google's YouTube products infringed EscapeX's '113 patent relating to dynamic album generation. Google responded through various letters asserting that EscapeX could not have conducted a meaningful pre-suit investigation and highlighting that the accused product existed before the patent's priority date. EscapeX continued the litigation despite the '113 patent being invalidated in a separate case. Eventually, EscapeX filed a "joint stipulation of dismissal," but without obtaining Google's consent. The district court found EscapeX's conduct—which included filing baseless claims, failing to respond to court deadlines, and submitting a frivolous motion to amend the judgment—warranted fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and additional sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
The Federal Circuit affirmed, emphasizing that zealous advocacy does not excuse reckless litigation tactics. The Federal Circuit also rejected EscapeX's argument that the short duration of the district court's involvement should reduce the deference given to its decisions.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
