Close

Articles Posted in Sanctions

Updated:

California Court Denies Rule 11 Sanctions For Failure to Comply With Rule 11’s Safe-Harbor Provisions

In Arrival Star S.A.., et al. -v- Meitek Inc., et al., Defendant Meitek Inc. (“Meitek”) moved for Rule 11 sanctions against the Plaintiff Arrival Star S.A. (“Arrival Star”) based on Meitek’s contentions that “ArrivalStar’s counsel (1) failed to prepare any claim construction before filing suit, (2) made a “tactical decision”…

Updated:

Sanctions for Alleged Spoliation Against Samsung Denied in Ongoing Battle with Apple by Administrative Law Judge at the ITC

In the running battle between Apple and Samsung that is playing out in courts and agencies around the world, Apple filed a motion seeking sanctions against Samsung for the alleged spoliation of evidence. Apple alleged that Samsung should be sanctioned for spoliation because Samsung deliberately failed to take institutional steps…

Updated:

Apple Wins Motion for Issue Preclusion Sanctions Against Samsung for Samsung’s Failure to Produce Source Code

The court had previously granted Apple’s motion to compel Samsung to produce the source code for Samsung’s accused products. Apple moved to compel a second time and sought issue preclusion sanctions for Samsung’s failure to produce source code. The court decided to focus on Samsung’s failure to produce code for…

Updated:

Apple v. Samsung: Rule 37 Sanctions Ordered Against Samsung for Failure to Timely Produce Documents Despite Two Court Orders

Apple sought sanctions against Samsung pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2) in two separate motions pertaining to alleged violations of discovery orders, including an order regarding discovery on damages. The court had initially ordered Samsung to produce two categories of documents: (1) documents from the custodial files of Samsung designers of the…

Updated:

Request for Sanctions for Spoliation Denied Where Plaintiff Failed to Bring the Spoliation Issue to the Court’s Attention for Four Months and Waited Until the Eve of Trial

Plaintiff Schering Corp. (“Schering”) filed a patent infringement action against Apotex Inc. (“Apotex”). Schering brought a motion contending that Apotex spoliated relevant evidence. The motion was based on the omission of allegedly relevant evidence from Apotex’ expert report. The expert report was served in October 2011 and Schering notified Apotex…

Updated:

Paying for Reduction to Practice of an Invention Does Not Make One a Co-Inventor of the Invention

Defendant was the sole named inventor of the patent in suit. Plaintiff brought a claim for inventorship, alleging that he was the co-inventor of the patent. The parties cross moved for summary judgment and for sanctions. The defendant and plaintiff maintained a business relationship for approximately 15 years, with plaintiff…

Updated:

Plaintiff Gives Thanks That Texas Court Denied Prevailing Defendants Their Attorneys’ Fees Despite Plaintiff’s Claim Construction and Infringement Theories That “Stretch[ed] the Bounds of Reasonableness”

In three patent cases brought by the same plaintiff, Raylon LLC, against numerous defendants, Judge Davis of the Eastern District of Texas denied Rule 11 sanctions and motions for attorneys’ fees under Section 285 of the Patent Statute, and Section 1927 of Title 28. Following the grant of summary judgment…

Updated:

Failing to Produce Documents and False Declarations Lead to Monetary Sanctions and Evidentiary Sanctions Precluding Defendants from Contradicting Plaintiffs’ Experts on Issues of Infringement, Sales and Profits

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit for patent infringement, unfair competition and breach of fiduciary duty against several defendants, including AIM Sports. Plaintiffs design, develop and distribute firearm related tools, accessories and sporting optics. Defendants and plaintiffs had a business relationship that permitted Defendants to access trade secret information that belonged to…

Updated:

Contempt Motion Granted Where Defendant Offered to Sell Its Infringing Product After Entry of a Permanent Injunction

Plaintiffs and defendant manufacture machines that automatically inspect integrated circuits made on semiconductor wafers. Plaintiffs sued defendant for patent infringement and a jury found that the patent was valid and infringed, but did not find that the infringement was willful. After the jury verdict, the defendant notified its sales force…

Updated:

Sanctions Granted for Repeated Discovery Misconduct and Attorneys’ Fees Awarded for Counsel’s Fabricated E-Mail

Plaintiff brought a patent infringement action alleging direct infringement of a single patent. The defendant, a corporation, sought an extension of time to respond to the complaint through a request from its CEO. Because corporations cannot represented themselves and must instead be represented by a licensed attorney, the district court…

Contact Us