Legal Opinion
In Re VIOLATION OF RULE 28(D)
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided March 29, 2011No. 2011-M976PublishedCited by 44 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DYK, Circuit Judge.
In this order we address whether counsel for Defendants-Appellants Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. and Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. (collectively “Sun”) should be sanctioned for the extensive use of improper confidentiality markings in the briefs filed by Sun contrary to Rule 28(d) of the Federal Circuit Rules. We conclude that the use of such markings was improper, and we impose sanctions on counsel in the amount of $1,000.
I
Some background regarding the underlying litigation is necessary to understand the context of the sanctions order. In 2007,…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Arizona v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- In Re the Knoxville News-Sentinel Company, Inc., (83-5095). In Re Knoxville Journal Corporation and Tennessee Newspapers, Inc., (83-5096)Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1983
- United States v. International Building Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1953
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by44 opinions
- June Med Svcs v. PhillipsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2022
- Cochran v. Volvo Group North America, LLCDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2013
- Synergy Solutions, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017
- Ground Zero Center for Non-Violent Action v. United States Department of the NavyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
- Mine Safety Appliances Co. v. North River InsuranceDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2014
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.