- Rule 11 Objective “No Reasonable Litigant” Standard: Violation of Rule 11 is purely objective standard, in 5th “There is a threshold below which a claim construction is ‘so unreasonable that no reasonable litigant could believe it would succeed.’” Raylon (Fed. Cir. 12/07/12) (rev’g denial of R. 11 sanctions, based on patent owner’s frivolous claim construction positions); Eon-Net (Fed. Cir. 07/29/11) (aff’g award of attorney fees and R. 11 sanctions based in large part on NPE plaintiff’s claim construction being contrary to description of the “invention” in the written description); Taurus IP (Fed. Cir. 08/09/13) (aff’g award of attorneys’ fees against Mr. Spangenberg company: “no reasonable litigant in Taurus’s position could have expected a finding that a web surfer accessing the accused external websites satisfied the requirement for a ‘user,’ as recited” in the claim); Source Vagabond (Fed. Cir. 06/05/14) (aff’g R. 11 sanctions based on patent owner’s frivolous claim construction position, even if correct construction rendered claim nonsensical). See Gust (Fed. Cir. 09/28/18) (2-1) (rev’g order under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 that plaintiff’s law firm is jointly liable for fees awarded, in part because its position under Sec. 101 was at least colorable so soon after Alice).
- TIPS: