Court Affirms Rule 11 Sanctions for Frivolous Claim Construction, Infringement Position

Ethics

Source Vagabond Sys. Ltd v. Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer LLP (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2014) is here.  Judge Wallach (with KM and JR (not EW)) affirmed imposition of Rule 11 sanctions against the firm that had represented the patentee.  Not a lot of new law, but it does make it clear that you’d better do a reasonable pre-suit investigation (claim charts not required always, but a good idea…) before you file a suit.

About David

Professor of Law, Mercer University School of Law. Formerly Of Counsel, Taylor English Duma, LLP and in 2012-13, judicial clerk to Chief Judge Rader.

Hide comments

2 thoughts on “Court Affirms Rule 11 Sanctions for Frivolous Claim Construction, Infringement Position”

  1. 2

    It seems the court viewed it that way!

    I’m revising my chapter on combining prosecution with litigation right now, and I agree — it can be a thicket.

    (Thanks for the fix!)

  2. 1

    Judge Wallach (with KM and EW)

    I think you mean “with KM and JR.”

    This one looks like it was pretty easy. The plaintiff’s arguments on claim construction were pathetic, and the attorneys appeared to have gone out of their way to avoid making a simple measurement that would have made it crystal clear that the case was a loser from the start.

    I think it’s a bad idea for patent counsel to be trial counsel in litigation involving a patent they prosecuted, for several reasons. One is that I think they’re too close to the subject matter to be objective. Perhaps that’s what was going on here. One alternative, I suppose, is that they’re just cr@ppy lawyers.

Comments are closed.