GHARB v. UNITRONICS INC
1:14-cv-01635
D.D.C.Mar 27, 2015Background
- In 2007 the court held Unitronics did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,552,654; a permanent injunction (Jan. 30, 2008) prohibited Samy Gharb from asserting infringement or interfering with Unitronics’ customer relations regarding the ’654 patent.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed the non-infringement judgment in 2008.
- Despite the injunction and affirmance, Gharb filed multiple new suits and dozens of motions (2014–2015) in this district asserting infringement and related complaints about trademarks and lawyers.
- Unitronics moved for a contempt judgment, sanctions (attorney fees), dismissal of the new complaints, and a pre-filing injunction to bar future suits about the ’654 patent.
- The court found the injunction clear, held Gharb in civil contempt for violating it, dismissed the patent-related complaints (and various related claims) under Rule 41(b) and res judicata, and awarded fees and costs (to be petitioned).
- The court entered a narrowly tailored pre-filing injunction: Gharb may not file new actions in D.D.C. relating to the ’654 patent without prior leave (motion for leave plus proposed complaint and disclosure of prior filings).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gharb violated the 2008 injunction (contempt) | Gharb continued to assert infringement and sought relief on the same patent | Unitronics: repeated suits/motions violate injunction; seek contempt | Court: injunction was clear; Gharb in contempt for repeated patent claims |
| Whether the new complaints should be dismissed | Gharb: alleges infringement and related harms; seeks damages | Unitronics: suits barred by injunction and res judicata; fail to state claim | Court: dismissed complaints under Rule 41(b) and res judicata |
| Whether attorney fees/sanctions are warranted | Gharb: sought relief; did not justify refiling | Unitronics/IMI: seek fees under civil contempt authority and 35 U.S.C. § 285 | Court: awards fees as compensatory contempt sanction and finds case "exceptional" under § 285; parties to file fee petitions |
| Whether to enjoin future filings by Gharb on the ’654 patent | Gharb: right of access to courts (implied) | Unitronics: need injunction to stop frivolous, repetitive harassment | Court: grants narrowly tailored pre-filing injunction requiring leave-to-file for any new D.D.C. suit relating to the ’654 patent |
Key Cases Cited
- Broderick v. Donaldson, 437 F.3d 1226 (D.C. Cir.) (federal courts possess inherent contempt power)
- In re Powell, 851 F.2d 427 (D.C. Cir.) (standards for issuing pre-filing injunctions against vexatious litigants)
- Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (Supreme Court) (standards for awarding fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285)
- Am. Rivers v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 274 F. Supp. 2d 62 (D.D.C.) (federal court orders must be obeyed pending appeal)
- Landmark Legal Found. v. EPA, 272 F. Supp. 2d 70 (D.D.C.) (civil contempt sanctions may compensate complainant for losses)