sanctions
Reversing a decision from the Eastern District of Texas, the Federal Circuit held that AdjustaCam unreasonably litigated its Camera Clip patent (U.S. Pat. No. 5,855,343) and that its case was objectively baseless—holding the case to be exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285. AdjustaCam LLC. v. Newegg, Inc., No. o. 6:10-cv-00329-JRG (E.D. Texas July 5, 2017). AdjustaCam sued Newegg and dozens...
A plaintiff whose theory of patent infringement depended on reading the word “at” to mean “associated with” was not subject to sanctions for bringing suit, even though the court found “unconvincing” the “plaintiff’s advocacy of this unusual interpretation.” NorthMobileTech LLC v. Simon Property Group, Inc., No. 11-cv-287 (W.D. Wisc. March 27, 2012). The claims of the patent-in-suit, U.S. 7,805,130, included...