In Loops, LLC v. Phoenix Trading, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Nov. 13, 2014), in a non-precedential opinion authored by Judge Dyk (with Judges Taranto and Chen), the court affirmed in part the striking of an answer due to several issues. First, the patentee had testified falsely at her deposition about a key document. Second, it held that a key document should have been produced in discovery, but had been withheld. However, the district court improperly based its sanction on other conduct, requiring remand.
There’s not a lot new here, but because rule 37 orders are not appealable before final judgment, it is unusual to see them even discussed by the court, and so I note the case for you here.
(And, yes, the Reines matter will be up soon. It’s been a busy week.)