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). SeeGust (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).
Patent Defenses is a research tool maintained by Klarquist since 2004. Visit klarquist.com to learn more about us.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.