Saturday, November 12, 2016

CAFC in Yufa v. TSI: consequences to patentee of filing a bad infringement case

The present appeal follows
from Dr. Yufa’s filing of a
complaint in the District Court alleging that TSI’s predecessor
-in-interest infringed the ’983 patent. T
he District Court granted
summary judgment of noninfringement in
favor of TSI.
See generally Yufa v. TSI, Inc., No. CV 09-01315-
KAW, 2014 WL 2120023 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2014).
TSI moved for attorney fees and costs, and the District
Court found that Dr. Yufa’s claims of infringement were
“objectively baseless,” granted TSI’s motion, and awarded
TSI $166,364.88.
See Yufa v. TSI, Inc., No. CV 09
-0 1315-KAW, 2014 WL 4071902, at *5
(N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2014);
Appellant’s App. 32

The bad news for the patentee:

TSI filed a motion to appoint Greyhound as receiver
and to compel the assignment of the Patent Portfolio to
Greyhound to satisfy the Judgment.

Within the conclusion

At some point, a pro se plaintiff
has to recognize that when a court says a cause of action
is without merit, the defendant can no longer be forced to
incur expenses associated with the litigation and must be
allowed to collect money owed. Failure to accept that
objective reality must necessarily result in the pro se
plaintiff bearing the expenses
the defendant is being
forced to pay without good reason. This is such a case.



Post a Comment

<< Home