Micro Processing Technology, Inc. sent a letter to Plasma-Therm alleging that Plasma-Therm was infringing MPT's patent. Plasma-Therm filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that it did not infringe. Six months into the litigation, MPT served preliminary infringement contentions, which were based "[u]pon the information currently available to MPT and its belief." MPT twice amended its infringement contentions.
Plasma-Therm then moved to strike MPT's infringement contentions, arguing MPT lacked diligence in their preparation. The Court denied the motion to strike, noting that while the contentions were "sparce," they gave notice of MPT's preliminary theories. The Court also noted that the parties would have an opportunity to serve final contentions later in the litigation.
A month later, MPT filed its counterclaims asserting patent infringement (and other claims). Plasma-Therm moved to dismiss those counterclaims. Two weeks later (before MPT responded to the motion to dismiss), Plasma-Therm sought sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 for MPT's failure to conduct a proper pre-suit inquiry before asserting its patent infringement counterclaims.
The next day, the Court construed a number of terms the parties has disputed, adopting Plasma-Therm's constructions. Shortly thereafter, MPT voluntarily dismissed its counterclaims and the case settled in full, but for resolution of the sanctions motion.
MPT offered four defenses to the sanction motion:
- its counterclaims were compulsory, so it had to file them at an early stage of the litigation;
- the sanctions motion is better resolved as a motion to dismiss;
- the standard for pre-suit investigations is different for method patent claims than product claims; and
- its pre-suit investigation was reasonable in light of its "good faith constructions.
As to the counterclaim being compulsory:
the fact that a counterclaim may be compulsory does not excuse a litigant or counsel from compliance with Rule 11. See e.g. View Eng'g, Inc. [v. Robotic Vision Sys], 208 F.3d 981, 986 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (affirming Rule 11 sanctions on defendant who filed counterclaims of patent infringement without reasonable inquiry following plaintiff's declaratory action seeking to have defendant's patent declared invalid, or in the alternative, a finding of no infringement).
As to the sanctions motion being better resolved as a motion to dismiss:
The Court disagrees. With respect to patent infringement claims, Rule 11 asks whether there was, at a minimum, a reasonable basis for a finding of infringement. Thought not the only factor, the content of the pleadings is relevant to that analysis.
As to the legal standard for sanctions in connection with method claims:
None of the cases MPT cites support its theory that a different pre-filing standard exists with respect to patent infringement claims involving a method. Q-Pharma, Inc. [v. Andrew Jergens Co.], 360 F.3d 1295, 1300-01 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (analyzing a patent “directed to a method” and stating that “[i]n the context of patent infringement actions, we have interpreted Rule 11 to require, at a minimum, that an attorney interpret the asserted patent claims and compare the accused device with those claims before filing a claim alleging infringement”); PPS Data, LLC [v. Athenahealth, Inc], 2012 WL 601208, at *1 (describing pre-filing analysis). Other case law on the topic of Rule 11 sanctions does not support MPT’s assertion, either. See, e.g., Judin v. U.S., 110 F.3d 780, 784 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (analyzing whether claimant and attorney adequately compared accused devices with patent claims involving a method). Therefore, the Court finds no basis to adopt MPT’s contention that it did not need to conduct a factual inquiry prior to filing suit.
As to the reasonableness of its pre-suit analysis:
Here, MPT has not shown why, prior to filing suit, MPT believed its claim of infringement was meritorious. MPT has not compared any product, process, or method utilized by Plasma Therm to the patents-in-suit. Nor has MPT even identified any such product, process, or method utilized by Plasma-Therm against which the patents-in-suit could have been compared. See Judin, 110 F.3d at 784 (Viewing an alleged infringing device “may have been sufficient to put Judin on inquiry about whether the Government was using a device that infringed his patent. But Rule 11 requires more. It requires that the inquiry be undertaken before the suit is filed, not after.”).
The only explanation MPT gives as to why it believed it had a reasonable chance of proving infringement is provided in a footnote, in which MPT states that “if Plasma-Therm practiced the disputed claims in the way Plasma-Therm implies it did in its claims constructions it would infringe the claims as construed by MPT.” Doc. 111 at p. 2, n. 3. But Plasma-Therm’s claim construction brief does not explain its own products, processes, or methods. Rather, PlasmaTherm’s claim construction brief describes only the patents-in-suit, including the specification and prosecution, to explain why the disputed claim terms should be construed as Plasma-Therm suggests. To the extent MPT draws inferences about Plasma-Therm’s product, processes, or method from Plasma-Therm’s advocacy of certain claim constructions, this is not explained. Nor would such inferences have necessarily been reasonable and sufficient for MPT to meet its burden under Rule 11 given the Court’s rejection of MPT’s claim constructions. See Source Vagabond Sys. Ltd. [v. Hydrapack, Inc.], 753 F.3d 1291, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Summarizing its analysis, the Court noted that "neither MPT nor its counsel even suggest that they attempted to apply the claims of the patents-in-suit to any accused device, method, process, or product of Plasma-Therm. The failure of MPT and its attorneys to make a reasonable inquiry before filing the frivolous infringement counterclaims warrants Rule 11 sanctions."
Motion for sanctions granted.
Plasma-Therm, LLC v. Micro Processing Technology, Inc., Case No. 8:15-CV-2785-T-36TBM (M.D. Fla. Oct. 23, 2018) (J. Honeywell)
- Implementation of the Trademark Modernization Act (TMA): What Trademark Owners Need to Know
- Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic Inc.: The Supreme Court Limits the Scope of Assignor Estoppel
- United States v. Arthrex: The Supreme Court Provides the Director of the USPTO with Review Authority over Final PTAB Decisions
- Starting a Business?: Trademark Considerations for Startups
- Congress Passes CASE Act of 2020 and Law Regarding Unauthorized Streaming Services
- Romag Fasteners v. Fossil: Willful Infringement is Not Required to Recover an Award of Profits in Trademark Infringement
- Trademark Squatting or Lucrative Opportunity? Time Will Tell
- Patent and Trademark Deadlines Further Extended Due to the COVID-19 Crisis
- Does the COVID Crisis Warrant Ex Parte Relief to Address Price Gouging under Trademark Theories?
- Patent and Trademark Right Deadlines Further Extended (to June 1, 2020) Due to the COVID-19 Crisis