“Admitting to receiving an email is materially different from admitting to Musi’s conclusion from the email—that Apple knowingly relied on false evidence,” Lee wrote.
Musi’s law firm presented the theory as an undisputed fact. But the judge determined that an attorney conducting an objectively reasonable inquiry would not have found the allegation to be well-founded.
“Accordingly, the Court finds that Musi’s counsel violated Rule 11 because it was factually baseless to allege that Apple ‘admitted’ that evidence from the NMPA regarding Musi’s intellectual property infringement was false, or that Apple knew that the evidence was false,” Lee wrote.
Lee assessed the awarding of fees and costs in full against the Winston & Strawn law firm, rather than Musi, stating that “counsel is more directly responsible for the Rule 11 violation, and counsel asked the Court not to sanction Musi directly.” Musi is represented by Winston & Strawn lawyers Jennifer Golinveaux, Samantha Looker, and Jeff Wilkerson.
In another wrinkle, Musi asked for an award of attorneys’ fees for defending against Apple’s motion for sanctions. Lee called this request “audacious,” pointing out that “Musi is not the prevailing party, and Apple’s motion has substantial merit.” Moreover, while Lee found that some of the Musi allegations challenged by Apple were not violations of Rule 11, she concluded that each Musi allegation challenged by Apple “was on the verge of baselessness.”
We contacted Musi and its lawyers today and will update this article if we get a response.
Source: arstechnica.com
