10 thoughts on “Rader/Chien/Hricik Op-Ed quoted by Judge Alsup

  1. 9

    Hmmm. I missed that part, I guess. My understanding was that he signed it, per instructions from his tenant/employer, and dated it properly. I don’t see why he would have any clue about the implications of an assignment that occurred after the filing of the lawsuit, or that he would have any clue that the litigation existed.

  2. 8

    He told the truth…

    …only at the later stage. NOT at the earlier stage wherein his signature attests to non-truths.

  3. 7

    I couldn’t agree more. But what did the landlord do that is worthy of condemnation? It appears that he was an agent of NPS for extremely limited purposes, and told the truth about it.

  4. 6

    Wow, that case is slimy. All I can say is that Alsup may have applied the letter of the law in his disposition, but I hope the ‘day in court’ that the sham attorneys have will bring full condemnation at the lower level. (hmm, can the ‘landlord’ be sanctioned or otherwise punished here?)

  5. 5


    Whatever I think is right isn’t relevant: it’s what Congress did. If you read the post (below) about 285, it’s beyond clear that (a) Congress didn’t adopt this sort of test and (b) the test doesn’t fit fee shifting — at all — it fits damages for filing suits. Congress intended, clearly, for equity to be the issue, for only gross negligence to be enough, and it’s silly to suggest that in 1952 Congress sought to adopt a standard adopted 50 years later in a different context.

    There’s a statute here….

  6. 4

    David, what is that you find wrong about Brooks Furniture? I think the standard of proof, clear and convincing, seem right if one is going to impose sanctions on a patent owner for filing a baseless claim.

    The reason I say this is that at first blush, the filing of a lawsuit is a constitutional right that should not be unduly encumbered. Clear and convincing seems the right standard here.

  7. 2

    To me, 285 does it. Brooks Furniture was an awful decision, as, sad to say, is most of the last 15-20 years of jurisprudence from the CAFC on that statute.

    One thing that I think is interesting to see is how the Supreme Court deals with 285 — where, I’ll guess, it will be incredibly “we have to follow the statute — and 101, where, I’ll guess, it will continue its foray into judicial activism…

  8. 1

    Not a fan of the Chen element (but I can stomach it by looking at the rest of the reasoning that takes the ‘severity’ of “Troll” portion just for arguments sake.

Comments are closed.