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.