Following summary judgment of noninfringement the court granted defendant's motion for Rule 11 sanctions for failure to conduct an adequate pre-filing investigation. "Although the law does not require that every patent-holder obtain an alleged infringer’s product before bringing suit, obtaining and using the alleged infringer’s product is an effective way to assess potential infringement. . . . [Plaintiff's counsel] provides no detail . . . about what steps he took to conduct his analysis or how he compared the claims to the application. . . . '[T]he facts here were easily and cheaply accessible to [plaintiff] and its counsel. They could have downloaded the free application and purchased [defendant's service].' [Plaintiff], however, did not take this simple, inexpensive investigative step, either before filing the complaint or after receiving [defendant's] initial Rule 11 motion. . . . [Plaintiff] instead reviewed Terms of Use on [defendant's] website – not even the terms of service on the application itself – rather than using the application to purchase [defendant's service]."
Smart Options, LLC v. Jump Rope, Inc., 1-12-cv-02498 (ILND February 11, 2013, Order) (St. Eve, J.).
No comments:
Post a Comment