Evonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., et al., C.A. Nos. 09-636 (NLH/JS), 10-200 (NLH/JS) (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2013)

7/27/2019 Evonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., et al., C.A. Nos. 09-636 (NLH/JS), 10-200 (NLH/JS) (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2013).

1/13

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

:Evoni k Degussa GmbH, :

: Ci vi l Acti on Nos.: 09- cv- 636 ( NLH/ J S) &

Pl ai nt i f f , : 10- cv- 200 ( NLH/ J S): CONSOLI DATED

v. ::

Mat er i a I nc. , et al., : OPINION::

Def endant s. ::

::

Mat er i a I nc. , ::

Count er cl ai m :Pl ai nt i f f , :

:and :

:Uni ver si t y of New Or l eans :Foundat i on andUni ver si t y of :

New Or l eans Resear ch and :Technol ogy Foundat i on, :I nc. s, :

:Thi r d- Par t y :Pl ai nt i f f s, :

:v. :

:Evoni k Degussa GmbH. , :

:

Count er cl ai m :and :Thi r d- Par t y :Def endant . :

Case 1:09-cv-00636-NLH-JS Document 437 Filed 09/30/13 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 20323


2/13

2

HILLMAN, United States District Judge:1

Cur r ent l y pendi ng bef or e t he Cour t i s Thi r d- Par t y Pl ai nt i f f s

Uni ver si t y of New Or l eans Foundat i on ( herei naf t er UNOF) and

Uni ver si t y of New Or l eans Resear ch and Technol ogy Foundat i on, I nc. s

( herei naf t er UNORTF) Mot i on t o be Dr opped as Part i es. For t he

r easons t hat f ol l ow, t he Mot i on shal l be gr ant ed.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORYThe f ul l f act ual background of t hi s case i s f ami l i ar t o al l

par t i es i nvol ved, and t he Cour t t her ef or e onl y di scusses t he f act s

r el evant t o t he i nst ant Mot i on.

I n t hi s consol i dat ed pat ent acti on, Pl ai nt i f f and Thi r d- Par t y

Def endant Evoni k Degussa GmbH ( herei naf t er Evoni k) asser t s t hat

Def endant and Count er cl ai m Pl ai nt i f f Mat er i a, I nc. ( her ei naf t er

Mat er i a) wi l l f ul l y i nf r i nged upon U. S. Pat ent No. 7, 378, 528 ( t he

528 Pat ent ) and U. S. Pat ent No. 7, 652, 145 ( t he 145 Pat ent ) .

Mat er i a deni es i nf r i ngement , and count er cl ai ms t hat Evoni k s pat ent s

ar e i nval i d and unenf or ceabl e based on t he doct r i ne of i nequi t abl e

conduct . [ Docket Nos. 48 & 166. ] I n i t s r esponsi ve pl eadi ngs,

Mat er i a, j oi ned by UNOF as a t hi r d- par t y pl ai nt i f f , l i kewi se

count er cl ai ms t hat Evoni k wi l l f ul l y i nf r i nged upon U. S. Pat ent No.

7, 622, 590 ( t he 590 Pat ent ) . [ I d. ] UNOF j oi ned Mat er i a i n t he

count er cl ai m on t he basi s t hat i t was t he sol e owner of al l r i ght s,

t i t l e, and i nt er est r el at ed t o t he 590 Pat ent . [ Docket No. 48

221. ] UNOF subsequent l y assi gned al l of i t s ri ght s, t i t l e, and

i nt erest i n the 590 Pat ent t o UNORTF, and UNORTF was t heref ore al so

1 Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t J udge f or t he Di st r i ct of NewJ er sey, si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.



3/13

3

j oi ned as an addi t i onal t hi r d- part y pl ai nt i f f t o t hi s act i on. [ Docket

No. 302. ] I n r esponse t o t he count er cl ai m asser t ed agai nst i t by

Mater i a, UNOF and UNORTF, Evoni k count ercl ai ms agai nst t hem f or

i nval i di t y and unenf or ceabi l i t y of t he 590 Pat ent , at t or neys f ees

pur suant t o 35 U. S. C. 285, and i nequi t abl e conduct . [ Docket Nos. 85

& 362. ] By way of st i pul at i on, t he par t i es subsequent l y agr eed t o t he

di smi ssal of Mat er i a s count er cl ai ms agai nst Evoni k based on

i nequi t abl e conduct . [ Docket No. 409. ]

Ther eaf t er , on J anuar y 27, 2012, UNORTF ass i gned al l of i t s

r i ght s, t i t l e, and i nt er est i n t he 590 Pat ent t o Mat er i a. [ Docket

No. 402, Decl . of Davi d R. Li pson, Esq. ( "Li pson Decl . " ) , Ex. A. ] 2 As

such, UNOF and UNORTF no l onger have any r i ght s, t i t l e, or i nt erest i n

t he 590 Pat ent at t hi s poi nt i n t i me. On t hi s basi s, UNOF and UNORTF

f i l ed a Mot i on t o be Dr opped as Par t i es f r om t hi s di sput e pur suant t o

Federal Rul e of Ci vi l Procedur e 21 on December 27, 2012. [ Docket Nos.

400- 403. ] Evoni k r esponded i n opposi t i on on J anuary 14, 2013 [ Docket

Nos. 407 & 408] , and UNOF and UNORTF r epl i ed on J anuar y 25, 2013.

[ Docket No. 413. ] Accor di ngl y, t he Mot i on i s now r i pe f or r evi ew.

II. JURISDICTIONThi s Court exer ci ses subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on pur suant t o 28

U. S. C. 1331 ( f eder al quest i on j ur i sdi ct i on) and 28 U. S. C. 1338( a)

( f eder al j ur i sdi ct i on r el at i ng t o pat ent s).

III. DISCUSSION

2 Thi s document was f i l ed under seal and i s deemed hi ghl yconf i dent i al . Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t does not pr ovi de speci f i cs i ni t s ci tat i on.



4/13

4

Rul e 21 of t he Feder al Ci vi l Rul es gover ns t he mi sj oi nder and

nonj oi nder of par t i es, and pr ovi des as f ol l ows:

Mi sj oi nder of par t i es i s not a gr ound f or di smi ssi ng anact i on. On mot i on or on i t s own, t he cour t may at any t i me,

on j ust t erms, add or dr op a par t y. The cour t may al sosever any cl ai m agai nst a par t y.

Fed. R. Ci v. P. 21. Al t hough i t s capt i on i ndi cat es that t he r ul e i s a

mechani sm t o r emedy the i mpr oper j oi nder of or f ai l ur e t o j oi n a

par t y, t he cour t s agr ee t hat t he Rul e may appl y even i n the absence

of mi sj oi nder or nonj oi nder . J oseph v. Baxt er I nt n l I nc. , 614

F. Supp. 2d 868, 874 ( N. D. Oh. 2009) ( quot i ng 4A Mat t hew Bender , Moor e' s

Feder al Pr act i ce 21. 05 ( 2d ed. ) ) . I ndeed, [ t ] he appl i cat i on of

Rul e 21 has not been l i mi t ed t o cases i n whi ch part i es wer e

er r oneousl y omi t t ed f r om t he act i on or t echni cal l y mi sj oi ned cont r ar y

t o one of t he par t y- j oi nder pr ovi si ons i n t he f eder al r ul es. 7

Char l es Al an Wr i ght , Ar t hur R. Mi l l er & Mary Kay Kane, Federal

Pract i ce & Procedur e 1682 ( 3d ed. 2001) . For exampl e, Rul e 21 has

commonl y been i nvoked t o pr eser ve f eder al cour t di ver si t y j ur i sdi ct i on

by dr oppi ng non- di ver se par t i es when t hei r pr esence i n sui t i s not

r equi r ed, or t o cur e a venue def ect by sever i ng a cl ai m assert ed

agai nst a part y as t o whom venue i s i mpr oper . I d. ; see al so Rout e 27,

LLC v. Get t y Pet r o. Mkt g. , I nc. , No. Ci v. A. 10- 3080, 2011 WL 1256618, at

*9 (D. N. J . Mar . 30, 2011) ( ci t i ng NewmanGr een, I nc. v. Al f onzo

Lar r ai n, 490 U. S. 826, 832 ( 1989) ; Bal gowan v. St at e of N. J . , 115 F. 3d

214, 217 (3d Ci r . 1997) ) ( Rul e 21 i nvoked f or pur pose of dr oppi ng non-

di ver se par t y f r om sui t ) ; Ar chway I ns. Ser vs. , LLC v. Har r i s,



5/13

5

No. Ci v. A. 10- 5867, 2011 WL 2415168, at *4- 6 (E. D. Pa. J une 15,

2011) ( Rul e 21 i nvoked t o cur e venue def ect ) .

Mor eover , t he t ext of Rul e 21 i s not i ceabl y si l ent as t o what

pr eci sel y const i t ut es the mi sj oi nder or nonj oi nder of a par t y. I t

has pr evi ousl y been r ecogni zed t hat mi sj oi nder i s pr esent i f no rel i ef

i s demanded f r om one or more of t he part i es j oi ned as def endant s.

Wr i ght & Mi l l er , Fed. Pr ac. & Pr oc. 1683. Mi sj oi nder has l i kewi se

been f ound when one of sever al pl ai nt i f f s does not seek any rel i ef

agai nst [ a] def endant and i s wi t hout any real i nt er est i n t he

cont r over sy. I d. Si mi l ar l y, i f a l i t i gant i s nei t her a pr oper nor

an i ndi spensabl e par t y, di smi ssal f or mi sj oi nder pur suant t o Rul e 21

i s appr opr i at e. Bi ovai l Labs. , I nc. v. Tor Phar m, I nc. ,

No. Ci v. A. 01C9008, 2002 WL 31687610, at *1 ( N. D. I l l . Nov. 26,

2002) ( ci t i ng Proct or & Gambl e Co. v. Ki mber l y- Cl ar k Corp. , 684 F. Supp.

1403, 1407 ( N. D. Tex. 1987) ) .

At l east one f eder al cour t has hel d t hat a par t y s assi gnment of

i t s i nt er est i n t he pat ent - i n- sui t t o anot her par t y nul l i f i es i t s

st at us as an i ndi spensabl e par t y, and the assi gni ng par t y i s t her ef or e

di smi ssi bl e f r om sui t pur suant t o Rul e 21. See Bi ovai l , 2002 WL

31687610 at * 2. I n Bi ovai l , pharmaceut i cal company TWFC, I nc.

obt ai ned a pat ent on i t s i nvent ed t echnol ogy. I d. at *1. TWFC

subsequent l y ent ered i nt o an assi gnment agr eement wi t h Bi ovai l ,

pur suant t o whi ch TWFC woul d r el i nqui sh al l r i ght s, t i t l es, and

i nt er est t hat i t hel d i n t he pat ent , and Bi ovai l woul d obt ai n t he

r i ght s t o t he pat ent . I d. However , bef or e Bi ovai l became t he

r i ght f ul owner of t he pat ent , TWFC f i l ed a pat ent i nf r i ngement act i on



6/13

6

agai nst Tor Phar m. I d. Si nce Bi ovai l had not yet acqui r ed owner shi p

of t he pat ent pr i or t o the commencement of sui t , TWFC was j oi ned as a

pl ai nt i f f i n t he pat ent i nf r i ngement act i on. I d. Less t han t wo

mont hs l at er , however , t he assi gnment agr eement was f ul l y execut ed and

Bi ovai l became t he r i ght f ul owner of t he pat ent - i n- sui t . I d. TWFC

t heref ore moved t o be di smi ssed f r om sui t under Rul e 21 on t he pr emi se

t hat t he assi gnment of i t s i nt er est i n t he pat ent - i n- sui t nul l i f i ed

i t s st at us as an i ndi spensabl e par t y. I d. at *2. The cour t agr eed,

f i ndi ng t hat TWFC no l onger mai nt ai ned a suf f i ci ent i nt er est t o

j ust i f y i t s cont i nui ng presence as a co- pl ai nt i f f i n t he case as a

r esul t of t he compl ete assi gnment : we concl ude t hat TWFC di d not

r et ai n any meani ngf ul i nt er est i n t he pat ent s- i n- sui t f ol l owi ng t he

assi gnment agr eement and that t he i ntended ef f ect of t he agr eement was

f or TWFC t o t r ansf er t he ent i r e bundl e of i t s r i ght s i n t he pat ent s t o

Bi ovai l . Ther ef or e, TWFC i s not an i ndi spensabl e or necessary par t y

t o t hi s l awsui t and i t shoul d be di smi ssed. I d.

The si t uat i on at hand i s di r ect l y comparabl e t o t he one f aced by

our f el l ow di st r i ct cour t i n Bi ovai l . Bot h cases i nvol ve t he compl et e

assi gnment of r i ght s and r esponsi bi l i t i es i n a pat ent t o anot her par t y

al r eady i nvol ved i n t he l i t i gat i on. Ther ef or e, adopt i ng t he r easoni ng

of t he Bi ovai l Cour t and appl yi ng i t her e, i t i s cl ear t hat UNOF and

UNORTF no l onger have a st ake i n the under l yi ng i nf r i ngement sui t

bet ween Evoni k and Mater i a. I ndeed, i n t he event of a compl ete

assi gnment of t i t l e t o a pat ent , onl y the assi gnee of t he pat ent or

t he assi gnee s excl usi ve l i censee has standi ng t o cl ai m pr ot ect i on

r i ght s under t he pat ent . I d. at * 1 ( quot i ng Gi l son v. Rep. of



7/13

7

I r el and, 606 F. Supp. 38, 41 ( D. D. C. 1984) ; ci t i ng Water man v.

MacKenzi e, 138 U. S. 252, 255 (1891) ; Mi chod v. Wal ker Magnet i cs Gr p. ,

I nc. , 115 F. R. D. 345, 346 ( N. D. I l l . 1987) ) . As such, UNOF and UNORTF

no l onger mai nt ai n a suf f i ci ent i nt er est i n t hi s case t o j ust i f y t hei r

cont i nui ng pr esence. Ther ef or e, si nce t hey ar e no l onger

i ndi spensabl e or necessar y par t i es t o t hi s di sput e, t hei r di smi ssal

f r om sui t i s appr opr i at e under t hese ci r cumst ances.

Despi t e the compl et e t r ansf er of UNOF and UNORTF s r i ght s and

i nt er est t o Mat er i a, Evoni k ar gues i t woul d be sever el y pr ej udi ced i f

UNOF and UNORTF were di smi ssed f r om sui t because t hi s woul d i nhi bi t

di scover y, r ai se subst ant i al evi dent i ar y i ssues, and pr event Evoni k

f r om pot ent i al l y obt ai ni ng at t or neys' f ees owed t o them.

The Court f i r st addr esses Evoni k s concer n r el at ed t o di scover y.

UNOF and UNORTF have been part i es i n thi s l i t i gat i on si nce 2010 and

2011, r espect i vel y. Di scover y has been ongoi ng si nce at l east t hat

t i me, and, as prof f ered by UNOF and UNORTF, a gr eat deal of

i nf or mat i on r el at ed t o t hei r r ol e i n t he 590 Pat ent l i t i gat i on has

al r eady been t ur ned over t o dat e. I t i s t r ue, however , t hat t he

di scover y pr ocess r emai ns ongoi ng and t hat t he Magi st r ate J udge

assi gned t o thi s case has def er r ed t he resol ut i on of cer t ai n di scover y

di sput es pendi ng t hi s Cour t s r el ease of a Markman rul i ng, whi ch was

j ust r ecent l y i ssued. However , i ncompl et e di scover y i s not a

suf f i ci ent basi s f or keepi ng an ot her wi se unnecessary and uni nt er est ed

par t y t et her ed t o a sui t i n whi ch i t has no st ake. The Bi ovai l Cour t ,

i n f act , al so deal t wi t h a si mi l ar i ssue, and i ndi cat ed t hat i t was

uncomf or t abl e wi t h t he i dea of keepi ng [ a par t y] i n t hi s case onl y to



8/13

8

f aci l i t at e [ t he opposi ng par t y s] di scover y i nqui r i es. Bi ovai l , 2002

WL 31687610 at *3. The Bi ovai l Cour t f ur t her r ecogni zed t hat t he

par t y s di smi ssal f r om sui t woul d not compl et el y t hwar t i t s opponent s

di scovery, as t he necessar y i nf ormat i on coul d be obt ai ned t hr ough

al t er nat i ve means. I d. Thi s Cour t shar es t hi s sent i ment . The Cour t

al so agr ees wi t h t he Bi ovai l Cour t s r easoni ng wi t h r espect t o f ut ur e

di scover y under t he assumpt i on t hat Evoni k wi l l not be ul t i mat el y

f r ust r at ed i n obt ai ni ng any i nf or mat i on i t r emai ns ent i t l ed t o

di scover . Al t hough di scl osur e of cer t ai n i nf or mat i on may no l onger be

aut omat i c when UNOF and UNORTF cease t o be par t i es, Evoni k may st i l l

pur sue and obt ai n t hi s di scover y t hr ough al t er nat i ve means, such as a

subpoena. Furt her more, t he Cour t not es t hat t he assi gnment agr eement

ent ered i nto bet ween Mat er i a and UNOF and UNORTF appears t o i ndi cat e

t hat Mat er i a wi l l be responsi bl e f or and compl y wi t h any di scover y

r equest s r el ated t o UNOF and UNORTF s r el at i on t o the 590 Pat ent .

[ See e. g. Li pson Decl . , Ex. A 2. 5. 2, 2. 11. ] 3 As such, even i f UNOF

and UNORTF ar e no l onger par t i es t o thi s di sput e, Evoni k shoul d st i l l

be suf f i ci ent l y abl e to obt ai n any di scover y i t may need f r om t hem.

Evoni k al so al l eges t hat UNOF and UNORTF s di smi ssal f r omsui t

woul d r ai se ser i ous evi dent i ar y concer ns down t he r oad at t r i al . To

be sur e, t hi s case i s st i l l i n t he r el at i vel y ear l y st ages of

pr oceedi ngs, and any pot ent i al t r i al i s a consi der abl y l ong way of f .

I ndeed, t he par t i es have not even engaged i n summary j udgment mot i ons

3 Si nce t he ass i gnment agr eement ent er ed i nt o bet ween UNOF andUNORTF and Mater i a i s deemed hi ghl y conf i dent i al and was f i l ed underseal , t he Cour t mer el y di r ect s t he par t i es t o t he appl i cabl epr ovi si ons of t he agr eement and does not ci t e t o speci f i c l anguagecont ai ned t her ei n.



9/13

9

pr act i ce and a Markman Opi ni on was j ust r ecent l y i ssued. As such,

Evoni k s argument pr emi sed upon evi dent i ar y i ssues at t r i al i s

specul at i ve. Mor eover , much as wi t h Evoni k s di scovery ar gument , i t

woul d be nonsensi cal t o keep a part y i n sui t merel y because i t s

adver sar y may, at some unknown poi nt i n the f ut ur e, possi bl y at t empt

t o use some t ype of uni dent i f i ed evi dence at a pot ent i al f ut ur e t r i al .

Such an argument i s an i nsuf f i ci ent basi s t o keep UNOF and UNORTF

anchor ed i n t he har bor of l i t i gat i on.

Evoni k s pr i mary ar gument f or mai ntai ni ng UNOF and UNORTF as

par t i es i n t hi s l i t i gat i on i s pr emi sed upon i t s pot ent i al r i ght t o

at t or neys f ees under 35 U. S. C. 285. Mor e speci f i cal l y, Evoni k

argues t hat UNOF and UNORTF pr esent l y seek di smi ssal because t hey do

not want t o be r esponsi bl e f or payi ng Evoni k s at t or neys f ees at t he

concl usi on of t hi s l i t i gat i on. Evoni k f urt her avers t hat , i f t he

Cour t gr ant s UNOF and UNORTF s r equest t o be di smi ssed f r omsui t , i t

wi l l be sever el y pr ej udi ced as a r esul t .

Secti on 285 of Ti t l e 35 st at es i n i t s ent i r et y as f ol l ows: [ t ] he

cour t i n except i onal cases may awar d reasonabl e at t orney f ees t o t he

pr evai l i ng par t y. 35 U. S. C. 285. An awar d of f ees under t hi s

st at ut or y sect i on i s desi gned t o compensat e t he pr evai l i ng par t y f or

i t s monet ar y out l ays i n t he pr osecut i on or def ense of t he sui t wher e

i t woul d be gr ossl y unj ust t hat t he wi nner be l ef t t o bear t he bur den

of hi s own counsel whi ch pr evai l i ng l i t i gant s nor mal l y bear . Samsung

El ec. Co. , Lt d. v. Rambus, I nc. , 440 F. Supp. 2d 512, 518 ( E. D. Va.

2006) ( ci t i ng Cent r al Soya Co. v. Geo. A. Hormel & Co. , 723 F. 2d 1573,

1578 ( Fed. Ci r . 1983) ; Badal ament i v. Dunham' s I nc. , 896 F. 2d 1359,



10/13

10

1364 ( Fed. Ci r . 1990) ; J . P. St evens Co. v. Lex Tex Lt d. , 822 F. 2d

1047, 1052 ( Fed. Ci r . 1987) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Mor eover , 285 i s desi gned t o det er par t i es f r om br i ngi ng or

pr osecut i ng bad f ai t h l i t i gat i on, [ whi ch] of cour se, pr ot ect s

l i t i gant s, t he cour t s, and t he j udi ci al pr ocess f r om abuse. Samsung,

440 F. Supp. 2d at 518 ( ci t i ng Mat hi s v. Spears, 857 F. 2d 749, 754 (Fed.

Ci r . 1988) ) .

As t he basi s of i t s ar gument , Evoni k rel i es on a ser i es of cases

whi ch i t al l eges st ands f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat a cour t can r et ai n

i ndependent j ur i sdi ct i on over a r equest f or at t or neys f ees pur suant

t o 285. See Monsant o Co. v. Bayer Bi osci ences N. V. , 514 F. 3d 1229

( Fed. Ci r . 2008) ; Hi ghway Equi p. Co. , I nc. v. FECO, Lt d. , 469 F. 3d

1027 ( Fed. Ci r . 2006) ; Cr i mson Trace Cor p. v. Lasermax, I nc. ,

No. Ci v. A. 09- 57- HA, 2010 WL 797667, at *3 ( D. Or . Mar . 2, 2010) ;

Ni l ssen v. Osr am Syl vani a, I nc. , 504 F. 3d 1223, 1229- 30 ( Fed. Ci r .

2007) . Thi s ar gument , however , i s i l l usor y and not yet r i pe f or

r evi ew. As i ndi cat ed by i t s st at ut or y t ext , t he r ecover y of

at t or neys f ees under 285 i s t wo- st ep pr ocess: ( 1) f i r st , t he par t y

must pr evai l i n t he underl yi ng di sput e, and ( 2) second, t he case must

be consi der ed except i onal . At t hi s poi nt i n t i me, Evoni k has not

pr evai l ed i n t he underl yi ng di sput e. Even assumi ng i t coul d and woul d

pr evai l , however , Evoni k has nonethel ess f ai l ed t o show t he Cour t how

i t s case qual i f i es as one t hat i s except i onal under t he st at ut e. I t

has pr evi ousl y been r ecogni zed t hat except i onal cases ar e l i mi t ed

t o ci r cumst ances i n whi ch i t i s necessar y t o pr event a gr oss i nj ust i ce

[ and] . . . when t he pat ent ee has pr ocur ed t he pat ent . . . or has



11/13

11

l i t i gat ed i t s cl ai m of i nf r i ngement i n bad f ai t h. Absent mi sconduct

i n t he l i t i gat i on or i n secur i ng t he pat ent , a t r i al cour t may onl y

sanct i on t he pat ent ee i f bot h t he l i t i gat i on i s br ought i n subj ect i ve

bad f ai t h and t he l i t i gat i on i s obj ect i vel y basel ess. Cr i mson, 2010

WL 797667 at *3 ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons & quotat i on marks omi t t ed) .

Evoni k does not al l ege t hat UNOF and UNORTF engaged i n bad f ai t h or

basel ess l i t i gat i on, nor has i t i ndi cat ed how i t has supposedl y

suf f er ed a sever e i nj ust i ce under t he pr esent ci r cumst ances. As such,

not onl y has Evoni k put t he car t i n f r ont of t he hor se by pr emat ur el y

j umpi ng t o t he concl usi on t hat i t woul d, i n f act , prevai l i n t hi s

l i t i gat i on, but has l i kewi se pr esupposed t hat i t s case woul d meet t he

r equi r ement s of an except i onal one as pr escr i bed by t he l aw. I t s

ar gument based on 285, t her ef or e, i s ent i r el y specul at i ve and, at

best , pr emat ur e.

Mor eover , even i f Evoni k coul d pr evai l on i t s argument f or

at t or neys f ees, t hi s i s st i l l not a reason to keep UNOF and UNORTF i n

t hi s l i t i gat i on. Mor e speci f i cal l y, shoul d Evoni k pr evai l and be

ent i t l ed t o a f ee award under 285, i t coul d obt ai n any such awar d

f r omMater i a. I ndeed, t he t ext of t he assi gnment agr eement ent ered

i nto bet ween UNOF and UNORTF and Mat er i a appear s t o i ndi cat e t hat

Mat eri a woul d assume responsi bi l i t y f or t he payment of such f ees.

[ See Li pson Decl . , Ex. A 1. 3, 2. 5. 2. ] 4 Whi l e Evoni k may pr ef er

mul t i pl e t ar get s of such an appl i cat i on, t he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hat

Evoni k s ar gument on t hese gr ounds appears t o be l argel y pr emi sed upon

4 As pr evi ousl y i ndi cat ed, supr a, t he Cour t mer el y di r ect s t hepar t i es t o t he appl i cabl e pr ovi si ons of t he agr eement and does notci t e to speci f i c l anguage cont ai ned t her ei n si nce t he assi gnmentcont r act i s deemed hi ghl y conf i dent i al and was f i l ed under seal .



12/13

12

Mat er i a s pot ent i al ent r y i nt o t he r eal m of Chapt er 11 bankrupt cy. I n

r eadi ng bet ween the l i nes of Evoni k s argument , i t i s appar ent t hat

Evoni k woul d pr ef er t o pur sue a sol vent par t y i.e. , UNOF and UNORTF

f or i t s at t or neys f ees t o enabl e a f ast er r esol ut i on, r at her t han

at t empt t o obt ai n such an awar d f r om a debt or t hat must sat i sf y i t s

ot her credi t or s and i s subj ect t o t he pr ot r act i on and uncer t ai nt y of

bankrupt cy. The Cour t cannot , however , keep UNOF and UNORTF tet her ed

as par t i es sol el y f or t he pur pose of af f or di ng t hei r adver sar y l eeway

i n deci di ng how t o obt ai n a specul at i ve awar d f or at t or neys f ees an

awar d t hat i s ul t i mat el y up t o t he Cour t i n accor dance wi t h t he

st atut e. See Samsung, 398 F. Supp. 2d at 480 ( ci t i ng S- 1 v. Spangl er ,

832 F. 2d 294, 298 ( 4t h Ci r . 1987) ) ( [ T] he cour t r et ai ned j ur i sdi ct i on

t o deci de whether and i n what amount s at t orneys[ ] f ees shoul d be

r ecover abl e[ . ] ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks & f ur t her ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

Absent some i ndi cat i on of f r aud or bad f ai t h, a par t y s f i l i ng f or

bankrupt cy cannot serve as a l egi t i mat e reason to avoi d the l egal

consequences of an ot herwi se proper l y execut ed assi gnment agr eement .

I ndeed, Mater i a has not even ent ered bankrupt cy at t hi s poi nt i n t i me,

nor i s t her e any evi dence pr esent i n t he recor d t o i ndi cat e t hat i t

wi l l def i ni t i vel y do so. However , even i f Mat er i a does ul t i mat el y

f i l e f or bankr upt cy, Evoni k wi l l st i l l be abl e t o obt ai n any f ee awar d

t hat i t may be ent i t l ed t o f r om Mat er i a, al bei t bei ng subj ect t o t he

pr i or i t y syst em of bankrupt cy. As such, Evoni k woul d not suf f er t he

sever e pr ej udi ce i t cl ai ms woul d occur i f UNOF and UNORTF were to be

dropped f r om t hi s l i t i gat i on.



13/13

13

IV. CONCLUSIONI n l i ght of t he f oregoi ng r easons, UNOF and UNORTF s Mot i on t o be

Dr opped as Par t i es f r om t hi s l i t i gat i on pur suant t o Rul e 21 shal l be

gr ant ed. UNOF and UNORTF shal l t heref ore be di smi ssed as t hi r d- part y

pl ai nt i f f s i n t hi s act i on.

An appr opr i at e Or der f ol l ows.

s/ Noel L. Hi l l manAt Camden, New J ersey NOEL L. HI LLMAN, U. S. D. J .


Documents

Evonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc., et al., C.A. Nos. 09-636 (NLH/JS), 10-200 (NLH/JS) (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2013)