§Why CasetextPricing

Oplus Technologies, Ltd. v. Sears Holdings Corporation et al

MEMORANDUM

20 Cited authorities

  1. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.

    501 U.S. 32 (1991)   Cited 9,253 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts "may bar from the courtroom a criminal defendant who disrupts a trial" may "assess attorney fees when a party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons," and "may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute"

  2. Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.

    508 U.S. 49 (1993)   Cited 1,137 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding litigants immune from an antitrust claim under Noerr-Pennington immunity

  3. NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.

    418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 459 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that users of accused system could not infringe method claims in the United States because one step of the method was performed in Canada

  4. Brooks Furniture Mfg. v. Dutailier Intern

    393 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 282 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Finding that bad faith is not established when a court "reached a different conclusion on the merits of infringement"

  5. Ricoh Co. v. Quanta Computer Inc.

    550 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 205 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party that sells or offers to sell software containing instructions to perform the patented method does not infringe the patent under § 271

  6. Joy Technologies, Inc. v. Flakt, Inc.

    6 F.3d 770 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 314 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that noninfringing acts may not be enjoined

  7. Jolly Group, Ltd. v. Medline Industries

    435 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 2006)   Cited 142 times
    Finding that a district court may impose sanctions sua sponte as long as it provides that attorney with notice regarding the sanctionable conduct and an opportunity to be heard

  8. Kotsilieris v. Chalmers

    966 F.2d 1181 (7th Cir. 1992)   Cited 137 times
    Holding that when calculating attorneys' fees a trial court "should determine the reasonable number of hours expended and the reasonable hourly rate for such expenditures"

  9. Claiborne v. Wisdom

    414 F.3d 715 (7th Cir. 2005)   Cited 91 times
    Holding that § 1927 fees cannot be issued to a law firm but "[t]his does not mean that courts are powerless to impose sanctions on law firms that bear some responsibility for an individual attorney's conduct," and specifically noting that one such avenue may be "the court's inherent power" to issue sanctions

  10. Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc.

    687 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 71 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the purpose of § 285 is to reimburse the alleged infringer for defending an action improperly brought, or prolonged in bad faith

  11. Section 1404 - Change of venue

    28 U.S.C. § 1404   Cited 28,511 times   185 Legal Analyses
    Granting Class Plaintiffs' motion to transfer action in order to "facilitate a unified settlement approval process together with the class action cases in" In re Amex ASR

  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. Rule 21 - Misjoinder and Nonjoinder of Parties

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 21   Cited 7,472 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts broad discretion when deciding whether to sever claims or to dismiss improperly joined claims or defendants

  14. 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