## Facts

- Herbert Judin owned U.S. Patent No. 3,656,832, directed to a micro-optical imaging method using specified optical components to form a diffraction-limited image.
- Judin observed postal bar code scanners in use and reviewed publicly available industry and commercial materials indicating government agencies used bar code scanning technology.
- Judin and counsel filed an action against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1498, alleging the Postal Service’s use of HP-supplied scanners infringed multiple patents; the case proceeded only on the ’832 patent.
- Before filing, neither Judin nor his attorneys obtained, tested, or meaningfully examined an accused HP scanner, nor did they secure detailed technical documentation sufficient to compare claim limitations to the scanner’s structure or operation.
- Hewlett–Packard (the scanner supplier) moved for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims, arguing the complaint lacked a factual basis because plaintiffs failed to conduct a reasonable prefiling inquiry.
- The Court of Federal Claims denied sanctions, reasoning that counsel’s reliance on Judin’s technical competence and observations was adequate.

## Issues

1. Whether the Court of Federal Claims abused its discretion by denying Rule 11 sanctions where the patent infringement complaint was filed without a reasonable prefiling inquiry into whether the accused scanner met the asserted claim limitations.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit vacated the order denying Rule 11 sanctions and remanded for determination and imposition of appropriate sanctions.
- The court held there was a clear Rule 11 violation because the prefiling inquiry was objectively unreasonable given the absence of concrete technical investigation of the accused scanners.
- The court rejected the trial court’s acceptance of counsel’s reliance on the inventor’s impressions as sufficient factual support for filing.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 11 requires an attorney or party to conduct a reasonable inquiry, under the circumstances, to ensure pleadings are well-grounded in fact and warranted by existing law (or a nonfrivolous argument for change).
- In patent infringement cases, a reasonable inquiry ordinarily requires obtaining and examining the accused product or otherwise securing specific technical information adequate to compare at least one asserted claim to the accused instrumentality.
- Reliance on an inventor’s generalized belief, indirect observations, or broad industry knowledge—without objective technical verification tied to claim limitations—may violate Rule 11.
- A sanctions ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion, but a court abuses that discretion when undisputed facts show the Rule 11 standard was not met.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit ruled that filing a patent infringement complaint without obtaining or otherwise reliably investigating the accused product can constitute a clear Rule 11 violation, and it required the trial court to consider and impose appropriate sanctions on remand.


Judin v. United States, 110 F.3d 780 (Fed. Cir. 1997)