Posts Tagged: "vexatious litigation"

Crocs Chase Dawgs With Motion for Sanctions After Allegations of Bad Faith Litigation

On December 1st, Niwot, CO-based shoe manufacturer Crocs, Inc. (NASDAQ:CROX) filed a motion for sanctions against Las Vegas, NV-based rival firm USA Dawgs Inc., which outlined a series of harassing legal moves in which Dawgs has engaged in recent years. Crocs is asking the District of Nevada to award Crocs costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by a lawsuit which Crocs alleges that Dawgs has pursued in bad faith.

Federal Circuit Upholds Sanctions and Attorney’s Fees for Vexatious Litigation and Frivolous Appeal

The Court upheld the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees and costs, finding ample support in the record for Walker’s vexatious conduct, and no legitimate reason for Walker to continue litigating after the Agreement. Further, Walker’s arguments on appeal mischaracterized clear authority on the courts’ ability to award attorneys’ fees. The Court also sanctioned Walker and his attorneys for pursuing a frivolous appeal and awarded attorneys’ fees and costs.

Nintendo Wins Attorneys’ Fees Fighting Baseless Patent Lawsuit

This is an exceptional case; IA Labs brought an objectively baseless claim, which the Court finds was brought in bad faith. Interaction Laboratories, Inc. — the original ‘226 patent holder — developed a product known as the Kilowatt that embodied the invention of the ‘226 patent. It was sharply apparent that the Kilowatt had been publicly demonstrated at trade shows, disclosed in numerous publications, and offered for sale more than one year prior to the filing of the patent application. Thus, the ‘226 patent was, without question, statutorily invalid pursuant to the on-sale bar. Since IA Labs knew of these invalidating activities before it sued Ninetendo for infringement, the Court can only conclude that it sued on the ‘226 patent in bad faith…

SHIELD Act Part 2 and Other Proposals to Combat Trolls

The latest incarnation of the SHIELD Act was introduced on February 27, 2013, and changes direction as if the first iteration were waived off in disgust before it could even lower its gears. SHIELD Act 2, scuttles the “reasonable likelihood of succeeding” idea floated and introduces a new tool aimed at walling off the troll: a bond requirement. If the plaintiff is not an original inventor or assignee, did not make a substantial investment in practicing the invention, or is not a university, that troll must post a bond. Like SHIELD Act 1, SHIELD Act 2 does not require the troll to fire the first shot. Interestingly, under SHIELD Act 2, Facebook would have had to post a bond in its battle against Yahoo! and theoretically an involuntary but necessary party joined as a plaintiff could be required to post bond.

A Review of the Patent SHIELD Acts and Recent Proposals to Reform Patent Litigation

“Patty Sue Just Won’t Go Away.” So went a 2002 article in the San Francisco Chronicle, one of a many articles spanning several years about Patricia McColm, a vexatious litigant blacklisted since 1994. She was the Most Vexatious Pleader of the vexatious litigants. If she were a patent attorney, frightened examiners would give her a 100% allowance rate without amendments. If the anti-joinder provisions of the America Invents Act (“AIA”) applied to Patricia McColm, she would have her own clerk’s office. One draws similarities between the problems presented by firms such as Intellectual Ventures, Acacia, and Lodsys and those presented by Ms. McColm, and a flurry of proposals were recently introduced in Congress.

Court Slams Frivolous & Vexatious Litigation with $4.7 MM in Fees

In what seems to be a continuing trend, the United Stats Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is continuing to show increasingly little tolerance for abusive patent litigation tactics. In the most recent pronouncement along these lines the Federal Circuit, per Judge O’Malley (with Judges Newman and Prost joining), ruled the district court appropriately awarded the defendant $3,873,865.01 in attorney fees and expenses under § 285, as well as $809,788.02 in expert fees.