In a recent high-stakes patent litigation case, a protective order, filed on November 22, 2022, was put in place to safeguard confidential information during the course of the legal proceedings. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff’s legal team had struggled to adhere to the protective order’s strict guidelines. The first…
Articles Posted in Sanctions
District Court Sanctions Plaintiff for Failing to Meet and Confer on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims
In a recent development in patent litigation, the district court has granted a motion to dismiss counterclaims in a case involving U.S. Patent No. 10,519,668 (“the ‘668 Patent”). The decision sheds light on the importance of adhering to meet and confer obligations, as well as the consequences of non-compliance. Background:…
Concealing of “Vital Evidence” until Weeks before Trial Justifies Death Penalty Sanctions
In this patent infringement action, plaintiff Performance Chemical Company (“PCC”) filed a motion for sanctions based on defendant, True Chemical Solutions (“True Chem”) concealing of evidence until a few weeks before trial. In analyzing the motion, the district court noted that the allegations of misconduct were largely undisputed: What distinguishes…
Plaintiff’s Violation of Protective Order Results in $40,000 in Sanctions for Disclosing Confidential Information from U.S. Litigation in a Lawsuit in China
SIMO Holdings Inc. (“SIMO”) prevailed on its patent infringement claims against defendant Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Technology Limited (“uCloudlink”) at trial. SIMO asked the district court twice to use confidential uCloudlink documents produced in pretrial discovery in a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit in Shenzhen, China between SIMO subsidiary Skyroam Shenzhen…
Repeated Coaching at Deposition Leads to Monetary and Issue Sanctions
In this patent infringement action, Plaintiffs Brian Horowitz and Creative Outdoor Distributors USA Inc. (the “Plaintiffs”) filed a motion for sanctions against Defendant Yishun Chen (“Yishun”) and his counsel, David Lin (“Lin”) for alleged misconduct that took place during the depositions of defendants. The court had previously granted a motion…
After Settlement, District Court Declines to Vacate Sanctions Order Requested by Joint Motion from All Parties
After all parties agreed to settle the case, the parties jointly moved to vacate a sanctions order. The district court declined to vacate the sanctions order, even though plaintiff’s counsel had apparently complied with the order, because the order was entered by a prior judge in a detailed ruling. After…
Court Orders Law Firm and Client Joint and Severally Liable for Part of Attorney’s Fee Award After Determination That Case Was Exceptional
The district court briefly summarized this patent infringement action that it found frivolous as follows: “In the 1990’s, Segan invented a system for people to browse the Internet. Today, Zynga makes video games that people can play while on Facebook. People don’t browse the Internet while playing Zynga games on…
District Court Holds Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Attorneys Jointly and Severally Liable for Attorney’s Fees and Costs After Finding that Attorneys Knew of False Affidavits Filed with the Patent Office
After trial, HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. (“HTC”) filed a motion seeking to recover attorney fees and costs from plaintiff’s attorneys as well as from plaintiff Intellect Wireless, Inc. (“IW”). IW withdrew its initial opposition and conceded that the case was exceptional within the meaning of the Patent Act.…
Court Orders Production of Work Product Documents under Crime-Fraud Exception to Attorney-Client Privilege Where Defendants Had Falsely Identified Source Code
In an earlier filed decision, the district court had previously found that Escort and its defense counsel had knowingly misled the plaintiff, Fleming, which warranted a sanction of attorney fees. As explained by the district court, “they falsely claimed that the source code identified as ESC17363 was the current operating…
District Court Sanctions Defendants for Failing to Agree to Standard Protective Order
In this patent infringement action, the plaintiff filed a motion for entry of a standard protective order after the defendant would not agree to sign a stipulated protective order. As explained by the district court, the plaintiffs sued defendants, alleging that they infringed on several patents. After the lawsuit was…