Unitronics (1989) (R"G) Ltd. v. Gharb
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40811
| D.D.C. | 2015Background
- Unitronics sued Gharb in 2006 for repeated harassment alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,552,654; the court held Unitronics did not infringe in 2007.
- The court entered a permanent injunction in 2008 barring Gharb from asserting infringement based on the ’654 patent, suing Unitronics or its customers for PLC-related conduct, or interfering with Unitronics’ customer relations by reference to the ’654 patent.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed the noninfringement judgment and the injunction in 2008.
- Despite the injunction, Gharb filed multiple new suits and numerous motions (2014–2015) alleging infringement of the same ’654 patent and making related accusations against Unitronics’ officers and counsel.
- Unitronics moved for a contempt finding, sanctions (including attorneys’ fees), dismissal of the new complaints, and a pre-filing restriction; the court ordered Gharb to show cause and considered his pro se filings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gharb violated the 2008 injunction (contempt) | Gharb continued to assert infringement claims and file suits based on the ’654 patent | Injunction bars any assertion or suit based on the ’654 patent; continued filings violate the order | Court found Gharb in civil contempt for repeated filings violating the injunction |
| Whether Gharb’s new complaints must be dismissed | Gharb contends Unitronics infringed and seeks damages | Unitronics argues complaints reassert barred claims and fail to state plausible new claims | Complaints dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and as precluded by res judicata and the injunction |
| Whether attorneys’ fees/sanctions are warranted | Gharb seeks relief; opposes sanctions | Unitronics seeks fees as compensation for costs caused by contemnor and under 35 U.S.C. § 285 as an exceptional patent case | Court awarded fees: contempt-based compensation and found case exceptional under § 285; Unitronics and IMI to submit fee petitions |
| Whether to restrict Gharb’s future filings (pre-filing injunction) | Gharb asserts right of access to courts | Unitronics seeks narrow prospective bar on filings related to the ’654 patent to stop harassment | Court imposed a narrowly tailored pre-filing restriction: Gharb must obtain leave to file new actions in D.D.C. related to the ’654 patent, with specific disclosure and proposed complaint attached |
Key Cases Cited
- Broderick v. Donaldson, 437 F.3d 1226 (D.C. Cir.) (federal courts’ inherent contempt authority)
- FG Hemisphere Assocs., LLC v. Democratic Republic of Congo, 637 F.3d 373 (D.C. Cir.) (confirming federal courts’ contempt power)
- Am. Rivers v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 274 F. Supp. 2d 62 (D.D.C.) (courts must vindicate authority by enforcing orders)
- Landmark Legal Found. v. EPA, 272 F. Supp. 2d 70 (D.D.C.) (award of attorneys’ fees as remedy for civil contempt)
- In re Powell, 851 F.2d 427 (D.C. Cir.) (standards for pre-filing injunctions against vexatious litigants)
- Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014) (standard for awarding fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must be plausible to survive Rule 12(b)(6))
- Food Lion, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Int’l Union, 103 F.3d 1007 (D.C. Cir.) (civil contempt sanctions remedial and compensatory)