Legal Opinion
Herbert Judin v. The United States, and Hewlett-Packard Company
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided April 3, 1997No. 96-5050PublishedCited by 50 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PLAGER, Circuit Judge.
Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”) appeals from a decision of the Court of Federal Claims, 34 Fed. Cl. 483 (1995), denying HP’s motion for sanctions under Rule 11, Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). HP alleged that plaintiff Judin and his attorneys failed to perform a reasonable inquiry prior to filing Judin’s patent infringement complaint. Because we find a clear violation of Rule 11, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in determining otherwise. We vacate the decision of the court and remand the case for further proceedings.
BACKGROUND
Judin filed a…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, Div. of Cadence Industries Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Unioil, Inc. v. E.F. Hutton & Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- S. Bravo Systems, Inc. v. Containment Technologies Corporation, S. Bravo Systems, Inc. v. Containment Technologies CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- Judin v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1993
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by50 opinions
- Speedplay, Inc. v. Bebop, Inc., Defendant/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000
- Q-Pharma, Inc. v. The Andrew Jergens CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
- Ilan Golan (Doing Business as Golan Products) v. Pingel Enterprise, Inc., Wayne Pingel, Donna M. Pingel, and Arlen NessCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
- Woods v. Deangelo Marine Exhaust, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2012
- MEE INDUSTRIES v. Dow Chemical Co.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2010
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.