United States: Rule 68 Offer Of Judgment: A Neglected Tool For Patent Infringement Defendants

Patent litigation is expensive. According to a 2015 report by the American Intellectual Property Law Association, even an infringement suit with less than $1 million at risk ends up generating an average of $600,000 in litigation costs. For small businesses, it can be frustrating—and even terrifying—to face the expense of patent litigation. And it can be especially frustrating when a defendant knows that the only possible damages will be dwarfed by the costs associated with moving forward with the litigation. Little known to many, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide a tool to encourage economically sound results: a Rule 68 offer of judgment.

Rule 68 is a risk-shifting tool built into the federal rules to encourage settlements and avoid unnecessary trials. The rule allows defendants to make an "offer of judgment" at any point up to 14 days before trial. The offer of judgment resembles a settlement offer from a defendant, and it carries with it some important consequences if the plaintiff does not accept it. The offer of judgment works like a wager with the plaintiff on the value of the case. Once the offer is made, the plaintiff must carefully determine whether the claim will ultimately be worth more than the offer. If he concludes it will not, the plaintiff should accept the offer. If he does, the court clerk enters the judgment and the case ends. If, however, the perceived value of the case exceeds the offer, the plaintiff may choose to let the offer lapse by not accepting it within 14 days. When plaintiffs pass on an offer, they proceed with the case. But they have opened themselves up to potential further liabilities. In particular, if the case proceeds to a final judgment that is less favorable than the unaccepted offer, the plaintiffs must pay the costs incurred by the defendants after the offer was made.

How Rule 68 is used is best shown by example. The defendants in our hypothetical case manufacture widgets that the plaintiffs believe infringe their patent. So the plaintiffs sue the defendants for patent infringement. The defendants do not think the widgets infringe. More to the point, they are certain that the widgets sold would produce damages equaling a maximum of $2,000. Knowing this, the defendants make a Rule 68 offer of judgment of $2,000. The plaintiffs do not accept, and the case moves forward. After trial, the plaintiffs are elated to see that they have won on the issue of infringement, but are devastated to see the royalty recovery totals only $1,000. As this sum is less than the offer, they are now liable for the defendants' costs, which total $25,000. In the end, the plaintiffs end up owing $24,000 instead of collecting $1,000 in damages.

It is important to recognize that under Rule 68 a defendant can recover only "costs." Typically, these costs do not include attorney fees. Instead, they will usually include only the other expenses necessary to bring a case to trial. Costs recoverable under Rule 68 are typically limited to taxable costs enumerated in 28 U.S.C.A, § 1920, unless the substantive laws on which the plaintiff's claims are based include attorney fees as part of the definition of costs. Typical examples of costs under Rule 68 include filing fees, photocopying costs and court-reporter fees. While these costs can add up over the course of the litigation, they will inevitably be much smaller than the attorney fees.

Important Considerations

Like any litigation tool, Rule 68 comes with caveats and risks. It is not the best option for every defendant or every situation, especially given the costs-only limitation. Even when the rule is potentially applicable, defendants must use it wisely.

First, a defendant who plans to make a Rule 68 offer of judgment should do so as early in the case as possible. This is because the recovery for successful defendants is limited to the costs incurred after the offer of judgment is made. Thus, if an offer is made exactly 14 days before trial, then the costs remaining will be only those incurred just before and at trial. Those costs will be relatively limited. Rule 68 is structured this way to encourage early evaluation of the value of a case by both sides, a structure that in turn should encourage early resolution.

Second, defendants should be careful to specifically address every claim and counterclaim in the case, as well as any potential for attorney fees and other methods of recovery, in the offer of judgment. The offer will be effective only for its exact terms. If the offer is silent on any aspect of the case, the case may still be litigated. In particular, care must be taken to address any statutory fee-shifting provisions that may apply. Courts have found that, where an agreement is silent on these provisions, plaintiffs may still properly claim those fees, despite a Rule 68 offer.

Third, defendants should realize that an offer of judgment is not the same as a settlement offer. An offer of judgment does not result in a dismissal, as is typical in a settlement. Instead, when a clerk "enters judgment" pursuant to an offer of judgment, it is essentially on the merits. But unless it is negotiated between the parties, there will not be a patent license going forward and the defendants may not be protected from additional litigation.

Fourth, settlement offers are typically treated as confidential. But if an offer of judgment is accepted, Rule 68 requires that it be filed. This means the offer becomes public and anyone can see the exact amount at issue. Thus, defendants should weigh the value of confidentiality before making an offer of judgment.

Fifth, an offer of judgment will affect only the claims at issue in the litigation and usually cannot release future claims. Defendants who are concerned about a potential future dispute can avoid infringement by negotiating for a separate license, designing around an allegedly infringed patent or seeking to invalidate that patent.

Not as Popular with Large-Entity Defendants

Given the potential advantages of Rule 68, one might wonder why it is not used more often in patent infringement cases. One reason is that it is less useful for large entities, which are most often the targets of patent suits.

First, as explained above, Rule 68 offers of judgment will produce, at most, only a partial recovery of certain "costs." There is some debate about what specifically can be included in the "costs" recoverable under a Rule 68 offer of judgment, even from district to district. As noted, however, attorney fees are typically excluded. The statutory costs can sometimes be absorbed by efficiencies of a large organization supporting a defense. So the incentive to make an offer of judgment is lower in proportion to the potential exposure.

Second, most large entities will want to negotiate a license. Being continuous targets of litigation, large entities usually value the security of knowing that particular plaintiffs will not be a repeat adversary. Also, it can be harder for a large entity to engineer around a patent, so a license can be much more imperative for settlement. Because a license is not an option when a Rule 68 offer of judgment is made, large companies are generally not motivated to use Rule 68.

Third, the public nature of an offer of judgment makes it unappealing for large entities. As potential litigation targets, they do not usually like to publicize settlement amounts. Nor do they ever wish to even appear to admit fault, which Rule 68 requires.

When a Rule 68 offer of judgment does not account for attorney fees—which is usually the case—most large entities will be inclined not to use the rule.

Less Effective Against Nonpracticing Entities

An offer of judgment under Rule 68 may not be a very effective tool against nonpracticing entities. NPEs have an economic interest in their patents, but they do not necessarily manufacture or sell patented products. Many of these entities are set up as limited liability companies for each new wave of cases. Some even create other small companies, sometimes for the sole purpose of owning the patents at issue and then bringing a lawsuit. If things go badly in the case, sometimes the company is dissolved and the owners simply walk away. Thus, if there are no funds to pay a debt to a Rule 68 defendant, there is no benefit.

Using a Rule 68 offer of judgment effectively against these NPEs is not impossible; it is just more complicated. For instance, if the NPE prevails but is not awarded more in damages than the offer of judgment, there is a good chance the NPE will pay the costs so it can collect the damages due. Even if the amount due in costs exceeds the damages awarded, the NPE may still pay rather than dissolve. The ability to pursue infringement suits against other companies with the same allegedly infringing patent after a successful verdict may be worth the costs incurred from an offer of judgment.

Further, even if a losing NPE does attempt to dissolve, that will not necessarily insulate it from the amount due by the offer of judgment. The defendant could argue to the court that the LLC is a sham and attempt to "pierce the corporate veil" and hold the real parties in interest accountable. But this approach will require additional time and costs. Because the whole point of the Rule 68 offer for judgment is to avoid unnecessary litigation expenses, this risk to the NPE may make it at least an optional tool for a defendant facing a plaintiff NPE. The threat of being exposed to personal liability alone can also be an effective tool to make an NPE pay the amount due under Rule 68.

Rule 68 Ideal for Disputes Between Small Entities

An offer of judgment is most likely to be used in cases involving small entities. In those cases, costs will usually be much higher in proportion to the total expense of the litigation. So while the prospect of collecting costs may not be attractive enough to encourage a large entity to use this tool, it will have a much larger effect on a smaller entity's bottom line.

Also, some of the difficulties in making an offer of judgment are simpler with small entities. Smaller entities tend to have more focused business footprints than large entities whose interests spread across an array of industries. Small entities also have fewer documents to go through even when a full company audit is required. This will make it much easier to efficiently determine the maximum exposure early in the case.

Small entities are also better equipped to design around patents and avoid future infringement. While a large entity may have more research and development resources and funds available for product changes, a smaller entity usually has to redesign far fewer products and likely has much simpler production infrastructure to retool. In certain cases, small entities may not even need to acquire a license at the end of the case to ensure they are no longer exposed.

Proposed Changes

Rule 68 has been underused throughout its history. Many proposals have been made over the years on how to increase its attractiveness as a tool to encourage settlement. These proposals have ranged from allowing plaintiffs to make Rule 68 offers to allowing withdrawal of the offer or including some or all of the offerer's attorney fees. Very informative articles have highlighted the pros and cons of these proposals, but none has yet attracted enough traction to be implemented.

Interestingly, amending Rule 68 to address the so-called abuses by NPEs has been put forward as a proposal for how to curb "excessive litigation" involving NPEs that file many cases. The proposal is that Rule 68 should be amended, in the case of patent litigation only, to explicitly include attorney fees, expert fees and other expenses incurred in bringing the case to trial as the statutorily recoverable "costs." It has even been proposed that NPE plaintiffs' attorneys should be held liable. Although some judges have begun to experiment with making lawyers representing NPEs liable for fees in exceptional cases, so far an amendment along these lines has not been enacted—and is not expected.

Although these changes may make Rule 68 a more powerful tool in a wider range of conflicts, the rule does provide a useful tool in its current form. A Rule 68 offer of judgment, while not without its risks, is an underutilized resolution tool that can be very helpful in specific cases. It may still not ultimately be the best fit for every defendant, but it is well worth taking the time, early in the case, to consider if this tool can help resolve litigation. When effective, it can help shorten what could otherwise be a much longer and more expensive settlement process.

Originally published by Westlaw Journal Intellectual Property.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions