“Acknowledging receipt of an email is materially different from acknowledging receipt of a message conclusion from the email—that Apple knowingly relied on false evidence,” Lee wrote.
Mussi’s law firm presented the theory as undisputed fact. But the judge determined that a lawyer conducting a proper investigation impartially would not find the charges correct.
“Accordingly, the Court finds that Mussi’s counsel violated Rule 11 because it was factually baseless to allege that Apple ‘admitted’ that NMPA’s evidence regarding Mussi’s intellectual property infringement was false, or that Apple knew the evidence was false,” Lee wrote.
Lee assessed the full fees and costs against the Winston & Strawn law firm rather than Mussi, stating that “counsel is more directly responsible for the Rule 11 violations, and counsel asked the court not to directly sanction Mussi.” Mussi is represented by Winston & Strawn attorneys Jennifer Golinveux, Samantha Looker and Jeff Wilkerson.
In another complaint, Mussi seeks an award of attorneys’ fees for defending against Apple’s sanctions motion. Lee called this request “courageous”, pointing out that “Musi is not the prevailing party, and Apple’s proposal has substantial merit.” Furthermore, while Lee found that some of the Musi allegations challenged by Apple were not violations of Rule 11, he concluded that every Musi allegation challenged by Apple was “on the verge of being baseless.”
We contacted Mussi and his lawyers today and will update this article when we receive a response.
<a href