National Cheng Kung University v. GEO Semiconductor Inc., No. 2:13-cv-00380 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 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.

Before the Court is Defendant Geo Semic onductor (“GEO”)’s “Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs Pursuant to 28 USC § 1927 Agains t Plaintiff NCKU’s Attorneys” (Dkt. No. 11, filed July 3, 2013.) For the reasons set forth below GEO’s motion is DENIED. While not immediately obvious to the Court from the Parties’ briefing, what the Parties actually have is a cautionary tale about the va lue of clear communicatio n between attorneys and the dangers of contentiousness, not a substantive dispute.