On October 17, 2012, Judge Means entered an Order (available here) sanctioning defendants for their counsel’s admitted (albeit inadvertent) violation of the Court’s protective order. Judge Means rejected plaintiffs’ suggested sanction: granting plaintiffs a royalty-free license with plaintiffs later paying a royalty to defendants for the use of the moveable-beam patent. Judge Means found that this requested sanction was “akin to a death-penalty sanction[.]” Instead, Judge Means agreed with defendants’ suggested sanction: a covenant not to sue plaintiffs for any product falling within the scope of the moveable-beam claims submitted by defendants’ counsel in October 2011, but which did not fall within the claims as originally filed, and with respect to plaintiffs’ products that were described in confidential material produced under the Court’s protective order.
Judge Means also awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred by plaintiffs in seeking sanctions for the admitted protective-order violation. Plaintiffs requested approximately $150,000 in attorney’s fees (comprised of, among other things, fees associated with 210 hours preparing the original motion for sanction and reply brief). Judge Means rejected this amount, finding that it was excessive. Instead, Judge Means awarded approximately $54,000 in attorney’s fees, and defendants and its counsel were ordered to pay this amount, jointly and severally.
