IP Law Daily, PATENT—E.D. La.: Marine contractor awarded nearly $1M in attorney fees in amphibious excavator dispute, (Mar 6, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

Cased deemed “exceptional” because patentee continued pursuing infringement claims after knowing that the cited prior art excavator disclosed technology that anticipated every claim of the asserted patent.

A federal district court in Louisiana has granted in part a motion for attorney fees filed by a marine construction company after prevailing in a patent infringement dispute concerning amphibious excavation equipment. The court held that the case became “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 once the patentholder continued pursuing infringement claims despite prior art that anticipated every asserted claim of the patent. Concluding that the patentholder’s litigation position became objectively unreasonable after disclosure of the prior art MudMaster machine, the court ordered the patentholder to pay $970,183.55 in attorney fees for work performed after June 2022 (Wilco Marsh Buggies and Draglines, Inc. v. Weeks Marine, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-03135-CJB-JVM (E.D. La. Mar. 5, 2026)).

Background. The dispute arose between Wilco Marsh Buggies & Draglines, Inc., a company that designs amphibious excavation equipment used in marsh environments, and Weeks Marine, Inc., a marine construction and dredging contractor that purchased amphibious excavators from a Malaysian manufacturer. Wilco accused Weeks of using equipment incorporating its patented stabilizing technology, while Weeks argued that the patent claims were invalid in light of earlier amphibious excavator technology.

Wilco’s claims centered on U.S. Patent No. 6,386,801 (the ’801 patent), which covered an amphibious marsh buggy equipped with excavation capabilities. The patent’s distinctive feature was the addition of side-mounted “spuds”—retractable pilings that extend to the bottom of the waterway to stabilize the machine during operations in deeper water. According to Wilco, this stabilizing system distinguished its technology from earlier amphibious excavators.

Wilco filed the infringement action in November 2020, seeking a declaration that Weeks’ use of amphibious excavators supplied by EIK Engineering infringed the ’801 patent and requesting damages. Weeks moved for summary judgment, arguing that the asserted patent claims were invalid because an earlier amphibious excavator known as the MudMaster anticipated the claimed invention. The district court ultimately agreed and granted summary judgment invalidating the patent. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit later affirmed that ruling, concluding that the MudMaster prior art anticipated the claims of the ’801 patent. Following that appellate victory, Weeks filed a renewed motion seeking attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, arguing that Wilco had pursued the litigation unreasonably after the prior art became clear.

Court’s analysis. In evaluating whether the case was “exceptional,” the court applied the standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545 (2014), which allows attorney fee awards in patent cases that stand out due to the weakness of a party’s position or unreasonable litigation conduct. The court also noted that patent holders ordinarily enjoy a presumption of good faith when asserting patent rights.

The court rejected Weeks’ argument that the case had been exceptional from the outset. It reasoned that Wilco could reasonably believe its patent was valid because the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had previously rejected challenges based on other prior art references, and because the court had initially denied summary judgment earlier in the litigation.

However, the court concluded that the litigation became exceptional once Weeks disclosed the MudMaster prior art in its invalidity contentions. The court observed that Wilco never meaningfully disputed that the MudMaster contained every element of the patented invention. Instead, Wilco focused on challenging the admissibility of evidence describing the MudMaster and relied on a mischaracterization of the law governing anticipation. Because Wilco continued litigating despite the clear anticipation issue, the court found its position to be objectively unreasonable.

Having found the case exceptional, the court calculated the appropriate attorney fees using the Fifth Circuit’s lodestar method, multiplying reasonable hours by prevailing market rates, as described in Combs v. City of Huntington, Texas, 829 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2016). It also considered the factors outlined in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974). Finding the requested hours and billing rates reasonable and seeing no basis to adjust the lodestar figure, the court awarded Weeks $970,183.55 in attorney fees incurred after the MudMaster prior art was disclosed.

Accordingly, the court granted Weeks Marine’s motion in part and ordered Wilco Marsh Buggies & Draglines to pay the awarded fees.

The Case is No. 2:20-cv-03135-CJB-JVM.

Judge: Barbier, C.

Attorneys: Adam Vincent Vickers (Intellectual Property Consulting, LLC) for Wilco Marsh Buggies and Draglines Inc. Michael K. Leachman (Jones Walker LLP) for Weeks Marine, Inc.

Companies: Wilco Marsh Buggies and Draglines Inc.; Weeks Marine, Inc.

Cases: Patent LouisianaNews