1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 110 F.3d
  5. 110 F.3d 780 (1997)
 

JUDIN v. U.S.

No. 96-5050.

110 F.3d 780 (1997)

Herbert JUDIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, and Hewlett-Packard Company, Defendant-Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 3, 1997.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Michael D. Steffensmeier, Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, Columbus, Ohio, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief were Edwin M. Baranowski, Columbus, Ohio, and Judd L. Kessler, Washington, D.C.

George C. Summerfield, Jr., Rader, Fishman and Grauer, Broomfield Hills, Minnesota, argued for defendant-appellant.

Before ARCHER, Chief Judge, PLAGER and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

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...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases