CAFC Affirms Section 285 Sanctions Without Citing the (incorrect) Brooks Standard

The case, Cartner v. Alamo Group, Inc. (Dyk, Moore, Wallach (auth) is here. ¬†Methinks it’s clear the court knows that the demise of the Brooks “objective/subjective bad faith” requirement is coming soon.

2 thoughts on “CAFC Affirms Section 285 Sanctions Without Citing the (incorrect) Brooks Standard

  1. Isn’t this better characterized as litigation misconduct? The patent owner may have had a case under the DOE, but continued to assert a literal infringement case that was frivolous. The whole bit about the interrogatories was probably the reason for the outcome.

Comments are closed.