Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01296/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01296-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Regal Electronics, Inc.,

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

Pulse Engineering Inc., et al.,

Defendant(s).

 /

NO. C 03-01296 JW 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT BEL

FUSE, INC.'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

PURSUANT TO FRCP 11

This Court denies Bel Fuse's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions against Regal and Regal's counsel

(Docket Item No. 149). Bel Fuse argues that, in light of the prior art '910 Patent, Regal's patent

infringement claim is frivolous. In particular, Bel Fuse highlights apparent inconsistencies in Regal's

position. Bel Fuse argues that its MagJack Connectors have substantially the same relevant features as

the technology disclosed in the '910 Patent, which Bel Fuse owns. Since its MagJack Connectors and

the '910 Patent are essentially one in the same, Bel Fuse argues, the '152 Patent "cannot possibly be

found to be both infringed by the Accused MagJack Products and valid over the '910 Patent." (Bel

Fuse's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions at 7:5-6.) This is the basis for Bel Fuse's Motion for Rule 11

Sanctions. 

"Rule 11 is an extraordinary remedy, one to be exercised with extreme caution. Such sanctions

can have an unintended detrimental impact on an attorney's career and personal well-being." Conn v.

CSO Borjorquez, 967 F.2d 1418, 1421 (9th Cir. 1992). "Because of the potentially chilling effect on

Case 5:03-cv-01296-JW Document 192 Filed 05/03/05 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

innovative lawyering, sanctions are reserved 'for the rare and exceptional case where the action is

clearly frivolous, legally unreasonable or without legal foundation, or brought for an improper

purpose." WILLIAM W. SCHWARZER, A. WALLACE TASHIMA & JAMES M. WAGSTAFFE, FEDERAL CIVIL

PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL § 17:121 (2004) (citing Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. A-C Co.,

859 F.2d 1336, 1344 (9th Cir. 1988) (emphasis added)). 

In this Court's opinion, Regal's and Regal's counsel's arguments do not rise to a clear violation

of Rule 11. Although this Court has not found Regal's arguments to be ultimately persuasive, in this

Court's opinion, Regal's arguments have been colorable and grounded in the law. Accordingly, this

Court denies Bel Fuse's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions. 

Dated: May 3, 2005

03cv1296sanctions

/s/James Ware 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-01296-JW Document 192 Filed 05/03/05 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Aimee Boss aboss@bannerwitcoff.com

Andres N. Madrid Amadrid@steinbergraskin.com

Charles Wilbur Shifley cshifley@bannerwitcoff.com

Daniel T. Shvodian shvodiand@howrey.com

Joshua L. Raskin Jraskin@steinbergraskin.com

Mark K. Dickson dicksonm@howrey.com

Mark Thomas Banner mbanner@bannerwitcoff.com

Martin C. Fliesler mcf@fdml.com

Martin G. Raskin mraskin@steinbergraskin.com

Stephen Christopher Kyriacou kyriacouc@howrey.com

W. Carlos Leet wcl@olimpia-whelan-lively.com

Dated: May 3, 2005 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By:/s/JWchambers 

Ronald L. Davis

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:03-cv-01296-JW Document 192 Filed 05/03/05 Page 3 of 3