Good Faith Reliance on Information Received from In-House Counsel, Verified After Challenge Raised, Defeats Rule 11 Sanction Sought for Misrepresenting Corporate Status

Huang v. Mediatek USA, Inc.815 Fed.Appx. 521 (Fed. Cir. 2020): This appeal arises from an action for patent infringement. Xiaohua Huang accused MediaTek USA Inc., formerly known as Nephos Inc., of infringing certain claims of
Continue Reading

Recent Articles

R. 11 Sanctions: Dismissal with Prejudice and Attorney’s Fees for Pro Ses’ Persisting in Frivolous Venue and Service Arguments Despite Warnings from Court — No Protection from 41(b)

R. 37 & Inherent Power (IHP) Sanctions: Permissive Adverse Inference OK Not Disclosing Witness After Reliance on Wit. Required (26(a)(1), (e)) —Plain Error Rare in Civil Case — IHP: Narrow Exception to Bad Faith Requirement

Rule 37 Sanctions: Until Amount of Attorney’s Fees Is Set, No Final Order Or Appellate Jurisdiction Exists, Even If Fee Award Is Only One Part of Larger Award, Including Default Judgment and Dismissal of Counterclaims

Common Core Doctrine: Fees Awardable for Claims Involving Common Facts Or Related Legal Theories, Even If Only One Triggers Fee-Shifting — Noncompliance with Bankruptcy Court Order Sanctionable via Striking Pleading on Analogy to Rule 37(b)

R. 11 Sanctions: Due Process—Flexible Notice, Substantial Compliance — OK to Issue OSC in 1 of 15 Cases & Dismiss All — Prisoner’s Knowledge of Own Conduct = Notice — Order Must State Specific Basis of Sxs — Types of Vexatious Lit Injn

Inherent Power/Rules 26, 37: Even Absent Spoliation, Evasive Discovery Action Punishable by Fee Award Calibrated Per Goodyear v. Haeger & Denial of 54(b) Costs — History, Importance of Jury Trial

Electronic Spoliation: Inherent Power—Fraud on Court Requires Clear & Convincing Evidence — Factors — Dismissal Requires Willfulness, Consideration of Less Drastic Sanctions — [No Reference to 37(e), Which Governs]

Good Faith Reliance on Information Received from In-House Counsel, Verified After Challenge Raised, Defeats Rule 11 Sanction Sought for Misrepresenting Corporate Status

Appeals: FRAP 38 Sanctions Apt If Appeal Is Wholly without Merit, There Is No Reasonable Expectation of Success — § 1927 Sanctions If Lawyer Reasonably Should Have Known Claim Is Frivolous

Rule 11 Sanctions Apt Where All Claims Barred by Statute of Limitations & Res Judicata [Even Though These Are Affirmative Defenses]

Archives