Lumen View Technology, LLC v. Findthebest.com, Inc. is the patent-troll case this site is built around. The pattern of the case — a non-practicing entity asserting a vague software patent against dozens of defendants, most of whom paid quick five-figure settlements — is the textbook NPE business model. The outcome — invalidation under § 101, attorneys' fees doubled as a deterrent — is the textbook example of what flips it.
This is the running example throughout the site. The patent at issue, US Patent 8,069,073, has its full invalidity dossier here.
Background
In 2013, Lumen View Technology — a Delaware shell LLC with no products, no employees, and a portfolio built around one patent — sued FindTheBest.com over US 8,069,073, a vague method patent for "bilateral and multilateral decision-making." The patent purported to cover any computerized matchmaking process: two or more parties submit preferences, a computer matches them.
Lumen View ran the same playbook against more than 20 other defendants in the same period — small companies, marketplace sites, comparison-shopping platforms. Most paid quick settlements in the $50,000-$200,000 range. The litigation cost was lower than the cost to fight, even though the patent was plainly junk under any honest § 101 analysis.
FindTheBest didn't follow the playbook. Its CEO, Kevin O'Connor (the DoubleClick co-founder), publicly pledged $1 million to fight rather than settle, and the company filed a civil RICO countersuit alleging extortion. (Pacific Coast Business Times, Sep 2013)
The § 101 invalidation (November 2013)
On November 22, 2013, Judge Denise Cote (S.D.N.Y.) granted FindTheBest's Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings and invalidated the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Lumen View Tech. LLC v. Findthebest.com, Inc., 984 F. Supp. 2d 189 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
The ruling came before Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (June 2014). Judge Cote applied the Mayo/Bilski framework — preemption analysis, abstract-idea analysis — to hold that the '073 patent claimed nothing more than a generic computerized version of human matchmaking. (Justia opinion)
When Alice was decided seven months later, the Federal Circuit on appeal had a ready-made framework to affirm. (Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank →)
The § 285 fee-shift (June 2014)
Five weeks after the Supreme Court decided Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness — relaxing the "exceptional case" standard for fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 — Judge Cote applied the new standard.
On June 3, 2014, she found Lumen View's litigation conduct exceptional. The patent was vague and clearly invalid; the demand letters had used boilerplate language with thin claim charts; Lumen View had filed against dozens of similarly-situated defendants and dropped many at the first sign of resistance. The court awarded fees under § 285. (EFF, June 2014)
This was one of the first applications of the new Octane standard against an NPE — making the case a touchstone. (Octane Fitness v. ICON Health →)
The doubling (October 2014)
In a follow-up order in October 2014, Judge Cote calculated the lodestar at $148,592 and doubled it as a deterrent against predatory NPE conduct, for a total of roughly $297,000 in fees plus costs. The doubling was novel — most fee awards under § 285 are compensatory only.
The reasoning: ordinary lodestar fees compensate the prevailing party but don't change the troll's economics if shell-LLC plaintiffs can simply absorb the loss as a cost of doing business. Doubling shifts the expected-value calculation. (EFF, October 2014)
The Federal Circuit (January 2016)
On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the exceptional-case finding under § 285 but reversed the doubling. Lumen View Tech., LLC v. Findthebest.com, Inc., 811 F.3d 479 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The court held that deterrence may justify whether to award fees but is not a permissible basis for enhancing the amount above a reasonable compensatory lodestar.
The exceptional-case finding survived. The doubling did not. The fee award was remanded for recalculation at the lodestar amount only. (CAFC docket)
Why this case is the running example
A few reasons the Lumen View case earns its position throughout this site:
- It's a complete cycle of NPE behavior and defendant resistance. Patent acquisition → demand-letter campaign → contested litigation → § 101 invalidation → § 285 fee-shift → appellate review. Almost every concept in the resources library shows up somewhere in the case.
- The patent is in our database. US Patent 8,069,073 has the full six-section invalidity dossier on this site — summary, litigation, prior art, obviousness, extensions, and derivative works.
- It establishes the Octane precedent. As one of the earliest exceptional-case findings post-Octane, Lumen View is one of the cases later defendants cite when seeking fees against NPEs with similar conduct.
- The defendant's CEO is the operator of this site. Kevin O'Connor, who pledged the $1 million to fight, is the same Kevin O'Connor who built IHatePatentTrolls. The site's framing — that the asymmetry can be flipped, that pre-built defenses make resistance affordable — comes directly from his experience in this case.
What it teaches defendants today
Three lessons that survived the Federal Circuit's reversal of the doubling:
- § 101 motions can win early and cheap. A Rule 12(c) judgment on the pleadings invalidated the patent before any discovery. The defendant didn't have to spend millions to win.
- § 285 fee awards under Octane are real money. The lodestar — even without doubling — was substantial. The deterrent effect comes from the troll having to actually pay what they spent, which is by itself an economic-model breaker if applied consistently.
- Public exposure matters. EFF and others covered the case extensively. Lumen View's portfolio was harder to monetize after the public ruling. Other targets in the same campaign settled lower or dropped entirely.
What didn't change
The cost asymmetry that made the case necessary in the first place wasn't fixed by Lumen View. Most defendants still settle. Most patents still get litigated. The system still tilts heavily toward plaintiffs who can outspend defense budgets.
The fix has to be structural. AI-generated invalidity dossiers — like the ones we publish here — are one piece of that fix. So is IPR. So is aggressive § 285 fee-shifting. The combination raises the cost of bringing weak patents until trolls can't run the playbook profitably.
Bottom line
Lumen View v. FindTheBest is the case that proved a defendant could win — could invalidate the patent, could recover fees, could publicly humiliate the NPE — when the defendant had resources and resolve. The implicit critique of the system is that "resources and resolve" shouldn't be the precondition for justice. The work since 2014 has been about making those defenses available to defendants who don't have either.
Read the opinions: § 101 invalidation, 984 F. Supp. 2d 189 (S.D.N.Y. 2013); Federal Circuit affirmance + reversal of doubling, 811 F.3d 479 (Fed. Cir. 2016); EFF coverage of the doubled fee award (Oct 2014).
See the live invalidity dossier on US Patent 8,069,073 →
This article is for general education and is not legal advice.