“Admitting to receiving an email is materially different from admitting to Musi’s conclusion from the email—that Apple knowingly relied on false evidence,” Lee wrote.
Musi’s law firm presented the theory as an undisputed fact. But the judge determined that an attorney conducting an objectively reasonable inquiry would not have found the allegation to be well-founded.
“Accordingly, the Court finds that Musi’s counsel violated Rule 11 because it was factually baseless to allege that Apple ‘admitted’ that evidence from the NMPA regarding Musi’s intellectual property infringement was false, or that Apple knew that the evidence was false,” Lee wrote.
Lee assessed the awarding of fees and costs in full against
→ Continue reading at Ars Technica