Sanctions appropriate when claim construction and infringement claim were objectively unreasonable

Source Vagabond Systems Ltd. et al. v. Hydrapak, Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2014) (Moore, Reyna, WALLACH) (S.D. NY: McMahon) (3 of 5 stars)

Federal Circuit affirms district court's decision to impose Rule 11 sanctions on Plaintiff.

SANCTIONS: Fed Cir affirms sanctions because Plaintiff's claim construction arguments and infringement claims were objectively unreasonable. Plaintiff's claim construction was objectively unreasonable because it added additional words to the actual claim language without support from the claims, the specification, or the prosecution history. Further, Plaintiff's infringement claim was objectively unreasonable because a finding of infringement was impossible under either party's claim construction and Plaintiff failed to present any evidence demonstrating reasonable pre-suit analysis. Plaintiff's argument regarding doctrine of equivalents failed because it was conclusory and because Plaintiff first raised this argument in opposition to the sanctions motion.