Back to Publications
January 1, 2025

Federal Circuit: District Courts May Impose Deterrence Sanctions Even After They Had Already Awarded Attorney Fees and Costs Under 35 U.S.C. § 285

The Intellectual Property Strategist
Download Publication as PDF

In PS Prods. Inc. v. Panther Trading Co. Inc., the Federal Circuit considered whether a district court may impose deterrence sanctions under its inherent power when it had already awarded attorney fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285. No. 2023-1665, 2024 WL 4996328, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 6, 2024). The Federal Circuit found that it may.

In this case, PS Products Inc. (PSP) accused Panther Trading Co. Inc. (Panther) of infringing one of PSP's design patents directed to a long-spiked electrode for a stun device. Id. at *1. After PSP filed the instant suit, Panther sent a Rule 11 letter to PSP stating that: 1) the infringement allegations were facially frivolous because the patented design and accused product were plainly dissimilar; and 2) venue was statutorily improper and the suit should not have been filed in Arkansas. Id. PSP later moved to voluntarily dismiss the case with prejudice, and Panther sent them a letter demanding reimbursement for attorney fees and expenses incurred defending the lawsuit. Id. After PSP failed to respond to that letter, Panther filed a motion for attorney fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285 as well as deterrence sanctions under the court's inherent power. The district court granted both.

To continue reading Jeffrey Ginsberg and Alexander Ivanovic's article in The Intellectual Property Strategist, please click here.