Correct me if I'm wrong, but the article states that if the plaintiff is the inventor or original assignee, they would qualify as a practicing patent holder and

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the article states that if the plaintiff is the inventor or original assignee, they would qualify as a practicing patent holder and would not be liable for paying the defendants fees. In Kearns' case, he would not be liable for paying defendants fees because he was the original inventor of the technology.