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

Ethics

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.

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

  1. 2

    Maybe, but if you were to apply Rule 37 sanctions, I don’t think you’d get the same $ amount.

  2. 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.