Intellectual Property Law
New Matter SPRING 2016, Volume 41, Number 1
Content
- 2016 New Matter Author Submission Guidelines
- Contents
- Copyright Act Termination Right in 2015 - Year in Review
- In Memoriam: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia 1936 - 2016
- Intellectual Property Section Executive Committee 2015-2016
- Intellectual Property Section Interest Group Representatives 2015-2016
- Interest Group Reports
- International Ip Developments
- Letter from the Chair
- Letter from the Editor-in-Chief
- MCLE Self-Study Article
- Ninth Circuit Report
- Petitioning for Inter Partes Review
- Remedies When Infringers File Bankruptcy
- The European Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court System: What's in it for U.S. Users?
- The Licensing Corner
- The State Bar of California Intellectual Property Alumni
- Ttab Decisions and Developments
- Case Comments
Case Comments
Lowell Anderson
Stetina Brunda Garred & Brucker
ADMISSIONS – REFUSAL TO ADMIT
Denying requests to admit a plaintiff had not been injured in its business or property by alleged antitrust violations did not support an award of fees to prove the truth of the requested admissions under Rule 37 for refusing to admit when the case was dismissed on summary judgment for lack of evidence of antitrust injury. The issue is not whether plaintiff prevailed on the issue to which the admission was directed, but whether it acted reasonably in believing it might prevail. As plaintiff acted reasonably, plaintiff proceeded in good faith in not admitting facts related to the antitrust injury and the refusal to award fees for denying the admission was affirmed. Magnetar Techs. Corp v. Intamin, Ltd., 801 F.3d 1150, 116 U.S.P.Q.2d 1507 (9th Cir. 2015); Accord 1970 Committee Comments on Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c) ("[T]he true test under Rule 37(c) is not whether a party prevailed at trial but whether he acted reasonably in believing that he might prevail.").