Firm That Defended VideoShare in Google Patent Suit Seeks $6M in Fees

The Shore Firm is seeking $6 million in attorneys’ fees it's allegedly owed for “successful representation” of VideoShare in a patent infringement lawsuit (6:19-cv-00663) against Google. The plaintiff received a $25.9 million judgment in the suit, rising to more than $31 million including prejudgment interest since the 2021 ruling, its April 30 petition said (docket 3:24-cv-01190) in Texas County Court in Dallas. The case was removed Friday to U.S. District Court for Northern Texas in Dallas.

An attorney retainer agreement (ARA) between The Shore Firm and VideoShare called for the law firm to be paid its attorneys’ fee on condition of collection of a judgment or settlement from the Google case, said the petition. The ARA and a subsequent release agreement required VideoShare to pay all costs and expenses due to The Shore Firm in representing it in that case and a related Meta action, it said. Despite “multiple demands” and an arbitration award issued April 23 that totals more than $1.02 million with interest, VideoShare “continues to refuse to pay the case expenses 'as agreed and awarded in arbitration,'” it said.

As a result of VideoShare’s “refusal to honor the terms” of the ARA and release agreement, plus "other actions and events," it created “just cause” for The Shore Group to withdraw from representing it in the Google case, said the petition. VideoShare also wrongfully terminated The Shore Firm after “just cause had been established” for the law firm to withdraw, it said. As a result of VideoShare’s “egregious culpable conduct,” the plaintiff demands an award of quantum meruit fees, payable immediately, “to shift the risk of an adverse outcome in the Google case to the defendant,” it said.

Though the ARA calls for all disputes between The Shore Firm and VideoShare to be resolved through arbitration, VideoShare expressly waived its right to arbitrate the issue of quantum meruit fees to compensate the plaintiff for the value of services it provided to the defendant, said the petition. When The Shore Firm objected that the arbitration award failed to address the amount of quantum meruit damages, VideoShare asserted that the amount of quantum meruit fees shouldn’t be determined in arbitration, said the petition. As a result of VideoShare’s objection, the arbitrator declined to hear the quantum meruit fee matter but issued an amended award “making clear that the issue remained unaddressed and open to additional litigation,” it said.

After issuance of the amended award, The Shore Firm gave VideoShare several chances to “undo” its waiver and agree to arbitrate the dispute over quantum meruit fees “due and owing.” However, it waived its rights “by refusing to participate in the process,” the petition said. The Shore Firm had “no option other than to file this suit or abandon its ripe quantum meruit claim,” it said.