Woodrow Pollock reports on the “the Rube Goldberg” of sanctions motions in an IP case — a skein of intertwined Rule 11 motions, counter-motions and what-have-you’s over whether due diligence had been performed prior to filing a patent claim.  He sees no reason to try and improve on the court’s language, so neither do I:

Putting to one side the original motion for sanctions, the Court must now turn to several papers that related to Defendant’s motion in a Rube Goldberg-like manner. [FN – The Official Rube Goldberg Website]

* * *

All-in-all, the Court finds Rube Goldberg’s cartoon of a Self-Operating Napkin more entertaining than the Rube Goldberg-like web of papers submitted in this case. Although both parties have likely spent a great deal of time and money preparing these submissions, neither party has benefitted. The Court has spent too much time addressing them. For future submissions, counsel should note that this Court, like the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, “is not inclined to award sanctions in favor of a party that cannot be bothered to follow the rules itself.” Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 2012 WL 372988, at *2 (7th Cir. Feb. 7, 2012).

Furthermore, as this case remains in its early stages, counsel are advised that the effect of launching a litigation nuclear arsenal directed at peripheral issues not genuinely intended to advance the case toward resolution in an efficient, meaningful way will greatly diminish the credit given by the Court to future filings. Choose your battles wisely lest the early salvos cost you the war.

Motion for sanctions denied.

As they — like so many meritless motions for attorneys fees (full opinion here) — so often are.

By Ron Coleman

I write this blog.

One thought on “The “Rube Goldberg” of sanctions motions”

Comments are closed.