Following the court's dismissal of plaintiff's qui tam false marking action, the court granted in part defendant's motion for costs. "[Plaintiff] argues it should not have to pay any costs because it was acting in the public interest by bringing the lawsuit as a qui tam relator to help the United States enforce the false marking statute; and if anything, it should only be required to pay half of any allowable costs. However, [plaintiff] did not provide -- and the Court cannot find -- any precedent holding that qui tam relators are immune from costs."
Promote Innovation LLC v Roche Diagnostics Corporation, 1-10-cv-00964 (INSD August 9, 2011, Order) (Pratt, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment