(a) The Board may impose a sanction against a party for misconduct, including:
(1) Failure to comply with an applicable rule or order in the proceeding;
(2) Advancing a misleading or frivolous argument or request for relief;
(3) Misrepresentation of a fact;
(4) Engaging in dilatory tactics;
(5) Abuse of discovery;
(6) Abuse of process; or
(7) Any other improper use of the proceeding, including actions that harass or cause unnecessary delay or an unnecessary increase in the cost of the proceeding.
(b) Sanctions include entry of one or more of the following:
(1) An order holding facts to have been established in the proceeding;
(2) An order expunging or precluding a party from filing a paper;
(3) An order precluding a party from presenting or contesting a particular issue;
(4) An order precluding a party from requesting, obtaining, or opposing discovery;
(5) An order excluding evidence;
(6) An order providing for compensatory expenses, including attorney fees;
(7) An order requiring terminal disclaimer of patent term; or
(8) Judgment in the trial or dismissal of the petition.
Notes of Decisions
Apple Inc. v. voip-pal.com, Inc., 976 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
· cites it 3× “According to Apple, upon determining that Voip-Pal’s ex parte communications were sanctionable, the Board was required to issue one of eight authorized sanc- tions under 37 C.F.R. § 42.12 (b). Apple noted that the Board issued a sanction not explicitly provided by Section 42.”
Amneal Pharm. LLC v. Almirall, LLC, 960 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
“37 C.F.R. § 42.12 al- lows the Board to impose sanctions including “attorney fees” against a party for misconduct including “[a]dvancing a misleading or frivolous argument or request for relief” and “actions that harass or cause unnecessary delay or an Case: 20-1106 Document: 24…”
Uusi, LLC v. United States, 133 Fed. Cl. 263 (Fed. Cl. 2017).
· cites it 2× “2 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.12 (a)(2)). On November 14, 2016, the PTAB issued its decision to institute inter partes review of the ’258 Patent, concluding that there was “a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in proving the unpatentability of claims 1, 11, 12, 17,…”
Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc., 33 F.4th 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
“As the cover page to the decision suggests, the Board was revisiting its institution decision under § 314, considering the time bar under § 315(a)(1) and (b), and evaluating Bennett’s motion for costs and fees under 37 C.F.R. § 42.12 . Id. As the Board itself noted, its deci-…”
Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2022).
“As the cover page to the decision suggests, the Board was revisiting its institution decision under § 314, considering the time bar under § 315(a)(1) and (b), and evaluating Bennett’s motion for costs and fees under 37 C.F.R. § 42.12 . Id. As the Board itself noted, its deci-…”
Anacor Pharm., Inc. v. Lupin Ltd. (D. Del. 2021).
“) 6 The PTAB may impose sanctions pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.12 . Sanctions may include “attorney fees” and may be awarded for “[a]dvancing a misleading or frivolous argument or request for relief” or “[a]ny other improper misuse of the proceeding, including actions that harass…”
ESIP Series 1 v. doTerra Int'l (D. Utah 2022).
“117 Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.12 , PTAB may impose sanctions against a party for, among other abuses, advancing frivolous arguments or actions that harass, or causing unnecessary delay or increased costs of proceedings.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.