Lyft’s argument centered on the claim that the order did not fully reflect the language of their joint stipulation, particularly concerning the ‘013 and ‘275 patents. However, Judge Tigar noted that the final order did not include any such qualifications and rebuffed Lyft’s attempt to apply the agreement selectively.
Lyft Denied $1M Fees In Patent Suit Because Of Previous Deal : Legal Arguments and Implications
Despite Lyft’s contention that it should be awarded fees due to Quartz’s conduct during the litigation, particularly regarding the ‘443 patent, Judge Tigar disagreed. He observed that Quartz had not engaged in a pattern of shifting positions to unnecessarily prolong the litigation as Lyft suggested.
The decision highlights the critical importance of clarity and consistency in legal agreements and orders. It serves as a reminder of the potential pitfalls of legal strategy, especially in complex patent litigation.
Representation and Next Steps
Lyft is represented by a team from Baker Botts LLP, including Jeremy J. Taylor and Karan Singh Dhadialla. Quartz’s legal representation comes from Fitch Even Tabin & Flannery LLP, with Jon A. Birmingham leading the charge.
