Fa-Hsing Lu v. Hyper Bicycles, Inc.

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
FA-HSING LU,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
HYPER BICYCLES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1110
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts in No. 1:20-cv-11739-NMG,
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton.
______________________
Decided: May 6, 2026
______________________
CHRISTOPHER E. H ULTQUIST , Hultquist Law, P.C.,
Providence, RI, argued for plaintiff-appellant.
L AWRENCE E COFF , Ecoff Campain & Kay, LLP, Beverly
Hills, CA, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented
by D AVID WILSON, Thompson Hine LLP, Washington, DC.
______________________
Case: 25-1110 Document: 47 Page: 1 Filed: 05/06/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

LU v. HYPER BICYCLES, INC. 2
Before H UGHES and S TOLL , Circuit Judges, and SEEBORG,
Chief District Judge.1
HUGHES , Circuit Judge.
Fa-Hsing Lu appeals a decision of the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts awarding
Defendant Hyper Bicycles, Inc. (Hyper) attorney fees under
35 U.S.C. § 285. Lu v. Hyper Bicycles, Inc., 701 F. Supp. 3d
156 (D. Mass. 2023) (Decision). In September 2020, Mr. Lu
filed a patent infringement action against Hyper. Three
years later, summary judgment was entered in favor of Hy-
per and affirmed on appeal. See Lu v. Hyper Bicycles, Inc.,
No. 20-11739, 2023 WL 5018024 (D. Mass. Aug. 7, 2023),
aff’d, No. 24-1081, 2025 WL 440368 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10,
2025). Hyper promptly moved for attorney fees pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 285, arguing that the case was frivolous when
filed and that Mr. Lu’s litigation conduct resulted in signif-
icant and unnecessary expenses. The district court agreed,
finding the case “exceptional” and awarding Hyper its at-
torney fees and costs incurred after January 3, 2022, the
date on which the district court concluded Mr. Lu’s counsel
“should have known” his client’s claims were meritless. De-
cision, 701 F. Supp. at 159. Mr. Lu timely appealed. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
In an exceptional case, a court may award attorney fees
under 35 U.S.C. § 285 to the prevailing party. An excep-
tional case “is simply one that stands out from others with
respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating
position (considering both the governing law and the facts
of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case
was litigated.” Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fit-
ness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545, 554 (2014). We review “all aspects
1 Honorable Richard Seeborg, Chief District Judge,
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, sitting by designation.
Case: 25-1110 Document: 47 Page: 2 Filed: 05/06/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

LU v. HYPER BICYCLES, INC. 3
of a district court’s § 285 determination for abuse of discre-
tion,” and we do so with the perspective that “the district
court ‘is better positioned’ to decide whether a case is ex-
ceptional, because it lives with the case over a prolonged
period of time.” Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt.
Sys., Inc., 572 U.S. 559, 561, 564 (2014) (citation omitted).
On appeal, Mr. Lu disputes the district court’s finding
that this case is exceptional, suggesting the trial court mis-
characterized his arguments as frivolous and disregarded
record evidence that his claims had merit.2 Even so, we dis-
cern no abuse of discretion. The district court concluded
this case was exceptional on the basis of its finding that
Mr. Lu “did not prosecute his claim in good faith and made
little effort to limit the costs incurred by dragging it out.”
Decision, 701 F.3d at 159. And that finding is well
grounded and supported by the evidence of record. Mr. Lu
made four separate agreed-upon requests for extensions to
discovery deadlines, yet he never propounded any written
discovery, took any depositions, or named any expert wit-
nesses. Id. Mr. Lu’s summary judgment briefing was “cur-
sory,” and he failed to submit any statement of disputed
facts in violation of local rules. Id. Further, his own discov-
ery responses revealed that he had no knowledge of
whether any infringing products were actually sold and,
from at least January 3, 2022, possessed no records identi-
fying any infringing products imported, manufactured,
sold, or offered for sale. Id. Given the above, we find no
abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to award fees
from January 3, 2022 onward.
2 We do not consider any of Mr. Lu’s arguments
made for the first time on reply. Norman v. United States,
429 F.3d 1081, 1091 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Arguments
raised for the first time in a reply brief are not properly
before this court.”).
Case: 25-1110 Document: 47 Page: 3 Filed: 05/06/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

LU v. HYPER BICYCLES, INC. 4
We have considered Mr. Lu’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. Because the district court did
not abuse its discretion in finding this case exceptional un-
der 35 U.S.C. § 285, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
Case: 25-1110 Document: 47 Page: 4 Filed: 05/06/2026

-- 4 of 4 --