§Why CasetextPricing

Advanced Video Technologies LLC v. HTC Corporation et al

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS denying

17 Cited authorities

  1. Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.

    572 U.S. 545 (2014)   Cited 1,393 times   122 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an "exceptional" case under § 285 is "one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigating position ... or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated"

  2. Oliveri v. Thompson

    803 F.2d 1265 (2d Cir. 1986)   Cited 919 times
    Holding that imposition of sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and district court's inherent power requires showing of bad faith

  3. Schlaifer Nance Co., Inc. v. Est. of Warhol

    194 F.3d 323 (2d Cir. 1999)   Cited 494 times
    Holding that a motion describing the sanctionable conduct and the source of authority for the sanction provided notice

  4. Eisemann v. Greene

    204 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 352 times
    Holding that court cannot require that litigant obtain permission prior to filing a motion authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

  5. U.S. v. International Broth. of Teamsters

    948 F.2d 1338 (2d Cir. 1991)   Cited 433 times
    Holding that a court may order sanctions pursuant to its inherent powers where a party or attorney "has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons"

  6. Shafii v. British Airways

    83 F.3d 566 (2d Cir. 1996)   Cited 204 times
    Holding that a state-law claim is preempted and removable from state court if resolution of the claim "depends on an interpretation of the collective-bargaining agreement"

  7. Ransmeier v. Mariani

    718 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2013)   Cited 104 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding "a veteran of federal court litigation" responsible for the egregious conduct of her attorney where "she worked closely with [him]"

  8. Central Soya Co. v. Geo. A. Hormel & Co.

    723 F.2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 208 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an "award of expenses was properly within the scope of § 285"

  9. Healey v. Chelsea Resources, Ltd.

    947 F.2d 611 (2d Cir. 1991)   Cited 153 times
    Holding that the court may not properly award Rule 11 sanctions solely because client's testimony was not credible unless it was incredible as a matter of law, and (b) the attorney filed a post-trial memorandum espousing his client's position

  10. Gaymar Indus., Inc. v. Cincinnati Sub-Zero Prods., Inc.

    790 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 47 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing finding of litigation misconduct

  11. Rule 11 - Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 11   Cited 35,998 times   145 Legal Analyses
    Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney

  12. Section 1927 - Counsel's liability for excessive costs

    28 U.S.C. § 1927   Cited 8,859 times   81 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts the power to charge "excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred" due to "unreasonabl[e] and vexatious" conduct

  13. Section 285 - Attorney fees

    35 U.S.C. § 285   Cited 3,206 times   481 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts discretion to award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in exceptional cases