“Opting to receive an email is significantly different from applying to Musi result from the email — Apple knowingly cited false evidence,” Lee wrote.
Musin’s law firm presented the theory as undisputed fact. However, the judge determined that a lawyer conducting an objectively based investigation would not consider the claim to be valid.
“Accordingly, the Court finds that Musi’s counsel violated Rule 11 because Apple’s claim from the NMPA that Musi’s evidence of intellectual property infringement was false or that Apple knew the evidence was false was factually unreasonable,” Lee wrote.
Lee assessed the full award of fees and costs against the law firm of Winston & Strawn, not Musi, saying “the defense is more directly responsible for the Rule 11 violation and counsel asked the Court not to directly sanction Musi.” Musi is represented By Winston & Strawn attorneys Jennifer Golinveaux, Samantha Looker and Jeff Wilkerson.
In another wrinkle, Musi sought attorney’s fees to defend against Apple’s proposed sanctions. Li called the request “bold”, noting that “Musi is not the prevailing party and Apple’s offer is reasonable”. Moreover, while Lee found that some of the Musi claims challenged by Apple did not violate Rule 11, it concluded that every Musi claim challenged by Apple was “on the brink of merit.”
We reached out to Musi and his attorneys today and will update this article if we hear back.
