Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., C.A. No. 14-448 - GMS, May 31, 2016.

Sleet, J. Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs is granted in part. The request for expert fees and costs is denied.

The court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss based on unpatentable subject matter after Alice was decided. That defendant is a prevailing party under section 285 is not disputed. The court concludes that although initially plaintiff’s assertion of validity had some merit, by the time of the Alice decision plaintiff was on notice that its claims covered an abstract idea and that the introduction of a computer did not alter the analysis. Plaintiff had an obligation to continually assess the soundness of its patent infringement claims. This case is exceptional because following Alice its claims were objectively without merit. The court declines to award expert fees. Meeting the bar for sanctions under a court’s inherent power rather than section 285 is more stringent.