§Why CasetextPricing

Dynamic Applet Technologies, LLC v. MATTRESS FIRM, INC. et al

REPLY to Response to Motion re SEALED MOTION DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 11

8 Cited authorities

  1. Amazon.com v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc.

    239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 515 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that secondary considerations based on "copying Amazon's ‘1-Click®’ feature is legally irrelevant unless the ‘1-Click®’ feature is shown to be an embodiment of the claims"

  2. MarcTec, LLC v. Johnson & Johnson

    664 F.3d 907 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 142 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding it was litigation misconduct for a plaintiff to "persist in advancing unfounded arguments that unnecessarily extended litigation," and that plaintiff's "decision to continue the litigation after claim construction" supported the exceptional case finding

  3. Taurus IP, LLC v. Daimlerchrysler Corp.

    726 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 95 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that case was exceptional where losing party filed multiple, repetitive motions and continued to litigate a position they already lost in court

  4. Raylon, LLC v. Complus Data Innovations, Inc.

    700 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 59 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a proposed claim construction that was unsupported by intrinsic evidence was frivolous and warranted Rule 11 sanctions

  5. Judin v. U.S.

    110 F.3d 780 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 62 times
    Holding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a sanctions motion when the record showed that neither the plaintiff nor his counsel had “obtain[ed], or attempted to obtain, a sample of the accused device ... so that its actual design and functioning could be compared with the claims of the patent”

  6. 01 Communique Lab., Inc. v. Citrix Sys., Inc.

    889 F.3d 735 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 25 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that although "an accused infringer cannot defeat a claim of literal infringement or establish invalidity merely by pointing to similarities between an accused product and the prior art, . . . [a litigant may argue] that if a claim term must be broadly interpreted to read on an accused device, then this same broad construction will read on the prior art."

  7. Syneron Med. Ltd. v. Viora Ltd.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-00639 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 12, 2014)   Cited 4 times
    Finding that the plaintiffs' pre-filing investigation and infringement analysis was reasonable and conducted in good faith when the investigation included a comparison of "their non-frivolously construed claim to [d]efendant's publicly available documents" and "the claim terms appear[ed] reasonably consistent with publicly available documents on an element-by-element basis . . . ."

  8. Peters v. Active Manufacturing Co.

    129 U.S. 530 (1889)   Cited 80 times   4 Legal Analyses

    APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO. No. 65. Argued January 25, 1889. Decided March 5, 1889. Claims 1 and 2 of letters patent No. 178,463, granted June 6, 1876, to George M. Peters, for an improvement in tools for attaching sheet-metal moldings, on an application filed March 7, 1876, namely, "1. A sheath for applying metallic moldings, said sheath being furnished with a stop for advancing the molding, all substantially as and for the purpose specified;