District Court Sanctions Plaintiff For Failing To Meet And Confer On Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Counterclaims – Patent

In a recent development in patent litigation, the district court
has granted a motion to dismiss counterclaims in a case involving
U.S. Patent No. 10,519,668 (“the ‘668 Patent”). The
decision sheds light on the importance of adhering to meet and
confer obligations, as well as the consequences of
non-compliance.

Background:

The defendants in this case had asserted counterclaims,
including declaratory judgments of invalidity and non-infringement
of the ‘668 Patent, breach of contract, fraud, unjust
enrichment, and constructive trust. On October 31, 2023, the
district court granted the defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment of non-infringement of the ‘668 Patent, marking a
significant milestone change in the proceedings.

Subsequent Events:

Following the district court’s decision, the defendants’
counsel sought to engage in a meet and confer with the plaintiff,
Upstream, regarding the possible dismissal of the counterclaims
without prejudice. Despite making multiple attempts to contact
Upstream’s counsel between March 19 and 27th, no response was
received. Consequently, the defendants proceeded to file a motion
to dismiss their counterclaims on March 29, 2024.

The District Court’s Decision:

In a surprising turn of events, despite Upstream’s failure
to engage in the meet and confer process, they indicated in their
reply that they “do not object” to the defendants’
Motion. Consequently, the district court granted the Motion to
dismiss the counterclaims, without prejudice.

Sanctions Imposed:

Nonetheless, the district court did not overlook Upstream’s
disregard for the meet and confer obligations. Citing Local Rule
7-3, which mandates thorough discussions between opposing counsels
prior to filing motions, the district court criticized
Upstream’s counsel for their failure to respond to numerous
meet and confer requests. This violation, coupled with
Upstream’s delay in filing a non-opposition to the Motion,
prompted the district court to impose sanctions.

Upstream Holdings, LLC v. Brekunitch, et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-03513-MCS (RAOx) (C.D. Cal. April 22, 2024)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.