Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
Federal Circuit: District Courts May Impose Deterrence Sanctions Even After They Had Already Awarded Attorney Fees and Costs Under 35 U.S.C. §285
In PS Prods. Inc. v. Panther Trading Co. Inc., the Federal Circuit considered whether a district court may impose deterrence sanctions under its inherent power when it had already awarded attorney fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. §285. No. 2023-1665, 2024 WL 4996328, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 6, 2024). The Federal Circuit found that it may.
In this case, PS Products Inc. (PSP) accused Panther Trading Co. Inc. (Panther) of infringing one of PSP’s design patents directed to a long-spiked electrode for a stun device. Id. at *1. After PSP filed the instant suit, Panther sent a Rule 11 letter to PSP stating that: 1) the infringement allegations were facially frivolous because the patented design and accused product were plainly dissimilar; and 2) venue was statutorily improper and the suit should not have been filed in Arkansas. Id. PSP later moved to voluntarily dismiss the case with prejudice, and Panther sent them a letter demanding reimbursement for attorney fees and expenses incurred defending the lawsuit. Id. After PSP failed to respond to that letter, Panther filed a motion for attorney fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. §285 as well as deterrence sanctions under the court’s inherent power. The district court granted both.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed. In doing so, the court found that there is no reason to treat sanctions under the court’s inherent power differently from sanctions under Rule 11 or expert fees under the court’s inherent power. Id. at *2.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.