Eastcott v. Hasselblad USA, Inc., No. 13-1050 (Fed. Cir. June 4, 2014)

From the Opinion

The passage below is extracted verbatim from the opening of the document. It has not been editorially summarized — consult the full opinion for the court's complete reasoning.

This patent appeal involves camera lens technology and the district court’s imposition of sanctions for a “sham” invoice requesting expert fees. In 2011, Appellant John Eastcott filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Appellees Hasselblad A/S, Hasselblad USA Inc., and B&H Photo & Electronics Corp. alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,592,331 (“the ’331 patent”). Specif i- cally, Eastcott a sserted that the Hasselblad HTS 1.5 adapter infringed claims 1, 6, and 26 of the ’331 patent.