“Acknowledging receipt of an email is materially distinct from conceding Musi’s inference drawn from that email—that Apple deliberately relied on false evidence,” Lee wrote.
Musi’s attorneys advanced the theory as if it were an established fact. The judge, however, concluded that an attorney performing an objectively reasonable investigation would not have deemed the claim well-founded.
“Accordingly, the Court finds that Musi’s counsel breached Rule 11 because it was factually unfounded to assert that Apple ‘admitted’ the NMPA evidence concerning Musi’s intellectual property infringement was false, or that Apple was aware the evidence was false,” Lee wrote.
Lee ordered the fees and costs be imposed entirely on the Winston & Strawn firm, not Musi, explaining that “counsel is more directly responsible for the Rule 11 violation, and counsel asked the Court not to sanction Musi directly.” Musi is represented by Winston & Strawn attorneys Jennifer Golinveaux, Samantha Looker, and Jeff Wilkerson.
In another twist, Musi sought attorneys’ fees for defending against Apple’s sanctions motion. Lee described that request as “audacious,” noting that “Musi is not the prevailing party, and Apple’s motion has substantial merit.” Although Lee found certain Musi claims contested by Apple did not violate Rule 11, she determined that each allegation challenged by Apple “was on the verge of baselessness.”
We reached out to Musi and its counsel today and will update this article if we receive a response.
