by Dennis Crouch
Huang v. Huawei (Fed. Cir. 2018)
This is a fairly ridiculous case. Acting pro se Mr. Huang sued Huawei for infringing three of his patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,744,653, 6,999,331, and RE45259 (high speed memory chips).
At the start of discovery, Huang agreed to a protective order, including a designation for “attorney’s eyes only.” Huawei then used that “attorneys eyes only” designation when it disclosed the technical information for its accused chips. Since he had no attorney, Huang was unable to look at the disclosures. When Huawei later motioned for summary judgment of non-infringement, Huang responded with a number of previously undisclosed reverse-engineering figures and declarations from undisclosed witnesses. The court granted a motion to strike that purported evidence as well as the summary judgment motion and awarded attorney fees to Huawei (but only $600,000) after finding his litigation behavior “constituted bad faith and an abuse of the judicial process.”
On appeal, the Federal Circuit has affirmed — holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
Lessons learned here: