Phil-Insul Corp. v. Reward Wall Systems, Inc. et al
Filing
250
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Polyform's Statement of Objections (Filing No. 245 ) to the Findings and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Filing No. 244 ) is denied. The Findings and Recommendations of the magistrate judge (Filing) No. 244 ) are adopted. Polyform's Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 11 (Filing No. 72 ) is denied. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (GJG)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
PHIL-INSUL CORP., d/b/a INTEGRASPEC,
Plaintiff,
8:12CV91
vs.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REWARD WALL SYSTEMS, INC.;
BUILDBLOCK BUILDING SYSTEMS, LLC;
NUDURA CORPORATION; POLYFORM,
A.G.P., INC.; and AMVIC CORPORATION,
Defendants.
This matter is before the court on the Statement of Objections, Filing No. 245, to
the Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) of the magistrate judge, Filing No. 244, on a
Motion for Sanctions filed by defendants Polyform, Inc. and Nudura Corporation
(hereinafter, collectively, “the Polyform defendants”), Filing No. 72.
The magistrate
judge recommended denial of the motion. Filing No. 244, F&R at 13.
In the motion for sanctions, the Polyform defendants assert that the claims of
infringement of plaintiff Phil-Insul Corp., d/b/a IntegraSpec (hereinafter, “IntegraSpec”)
are baseless and frivolous. Essentially, the magistrate judge found that an analysis of
the prosecution history demonstrates that an interpretation that is contrary to that of the
Polyform defendants and to that of the court in the claim construction and summary
judgment orders, though unsuccessful, is objectively reasonable and supportable. Id. at
12.
The Supreme Court has construed the statutory grant of authority conferred on
magistrate judges under 28 U.S.C. § 636 to mean that nondispositive pretrial matters
are governed by § 636(b)(1)(A) and dispositive’ matters are covered by § 636(b)(1)(B).
Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 873-74 (1989); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
On review of a decision of the magistrate judge on a nondispositive matter, the district
court may set aside any part of the magistrate judge’s order that it finds is clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). With
respect to dispositive motions, a magistrate judge lacks authority to do anything but
make recommendations, which are subject to de novo review.
United States v.
Lothridge, 324 F.3d 599, 600 (8th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The federal courts are not in agreement as to whether Fed. R. Civ. P. 11
sanctions are dispositive or nondispositive. Compare Bennett v. General Caster Serv.,
976 F.2d 995, 998 (6th Cir. 1992) (dispositive); Retired Chicago Police Ass'n v. City of
Chicago, 76 F.3d 856, 869 (7th Cir. 1996) (stating that “[t]he fact that an attorney was
the subject of a sanctions request does not change the fact that resolution of a
sanctions request is a dispositive matter capable of being referred to a magistrate judge
only under § 636(b)(1)(B) or § 636(b)(3), where the district judge must review the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendations de novo.”); with Maisonville v. F2
America, Inc., 902 F.2d 746, 748 (9th Cir. 1990) (nondispositive); see also Kiobel v.
Millson, 592 F.3d 78, 84-86 (2d Cir. 2010) (J. Cabranes, concurring) (collecting cases).
“Rule 11 sanctions may be imposed on the filing of a complaint when ‘the
frivolous nature of the claims-at-issue is unequivocal.’” Hall v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.,
705 F.3d 1357, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Carter v. ALK Holdings, Inc., 605 F.3d
1319, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “Reasonable minds can differ as to claim construction
positions and losing constructions can nevertheless be nonfrivolous.” Raylon, LLC v.
Complus Data Innovations, Inc., 700 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012). However, “there
2
is a threshold below which a claim construction is ‘so unreasonable that no reasonable
litigant could believe it would succeed,’ and thus warrants Rule 11 sanctions.”
Id.
(quoting iLOR, LLC v. Google, Inc., 631 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011). An objective
reasonableness standard applies in determining whether conduct violates Rule 11’s
requirements. Norsyn, Inc. v. Desai, 351 F.3d 825, 831 (8th Cir. 2003).
Because the magistrate judge made findings and issued a recommendation, this
court conducts de novo review. The court has reviewed the parties’ submissions in
connection with the motion as well as the objection and response thereto. The court
finds no error in the magistrate judge’s findings.
IntegraSpec’s position is not so
unreasonable that no reasonable litigant could believe it would succeed. The court
agrees with the magistrate judge’s conclusion that “IntegraSpec’s positions ultimately
proved unsuccessful but were not meritless.” Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
Polyform’s Statement of Objections (Filing No. 245) to the Findings and
Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Filing No. 244) is denied.
2.
The Findings and Recommendations of the magistrate judge (Filing No.
244) are adopted.
3.
Polyform’s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 11 (Filing No. 72) is
denied.
Dated this 29th day of May, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?