Congress Considers Changes to Rule 11 Sanctions


We are pleased to announce the addition of  R. David Donoghue to our list of distinguished Contributors.  He is a Partner in Holland & Knight’s Intellectual Property Group focusing upon intellectual property litigation and particularly upon patent disputes.  Dave just sent along this article he recently posted on his blog, Chicago IP Litigation, discussing the changes to Rule 11 sanctions being considered by Congress.  The article details the proposed amendments and the testimony supporting and opposing the H.R. 966 Bill.

Congress is currently considering revision Rule 11 sanctions, including:

  1. Removing the existing 21 day “safe harbor” provision which requires that you send your motion to the opposing party and give them 21 days to remedy the alleged Rule 11 violation before filing the motion with the Court; and
  2. Making an award of fees and costs related to a winning Rule 11 motion automatic, instead of discretionary.

The Federal Bar Association (of which I am a member) has published a call for comment that sets out both sides of the issue well.  It follows below.  I can understand the inclination to make fees and costs automatic, but the 21 day “safe harbor” serves a valuable gatekeeping role.  It avoid clogging the federal courts with Rule 11 motions that could be fixed with notice of the alleged deficiency.

Click here to read Donoghue’s full article.


Tags: , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

You share in the PLI Practice Center community, so we just ask that you keep things civil. Leave out the personal attacks. Do not use profanity, ethnic or racial slurs, or take shots at anyone's sexual orientation or religion. If you can't be nice, we reserve the right to remove your material and ban users who violate our Terms of Service.

You must be logged in to post a comment.