但拜托，能不能不要再丢人现眼漏丑？

74年后美国没有法官批准过RULE11？

看看B)写的是什么。罚了63万美元。为什么？ 两条：一是无理无据就起诉。二是有敲诈嫌疑。

黄处长，你掂量掂量你的诉讼，是不是也符合这两条啊？

转贴：

A)

关于这一点，海明自己在7月9日的微博里也有过交代：“莫虎今天向我发出最后通牒：他本月12日将正式向法院上交RULE 11惩罚动议，要求法院惩罚我和桑兰本人。他说，我的新修改的诉讼状不真实，没有证据佐证。所以，要法庭惩罚原告和律师，支付被告的律师费。”

黄健表示这个动议执行的可能性非常的低，但这个理由足以让海明不想继续再为桑兰代理官司，他说：“美国在1974年之后就没有原告和律师因为RULE11受到惩罚了，这只是对方律师的一种威慑而已；而且即便这个案件在法律上是过了追诉期，但对于追诉期的认定是有不同说法的，也就是说还是有的可打，最主要的原因是海明自己怕承担风险，以至于案件还在审议阶段他就要撤出。”

B)

The following is excerpted from a September 27, 2011 article by Stephen M. Hash, John A. Fedock and Syed Kamil Fareed of Vinson & Elkins LLP published by Mondaq:

The U.S. Federal Circuit recently affirmed an award of attorneys' fees and sanctions against plaintiff Eon-Net in excess of $630,000. (Eon-Net LP, v. Flagstar Bancorp, Case No. 2009-1308 ). In an opinion written by Judge Lourie and joined by judges Mayer and O'Malley, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that the case was exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 in light of various instances of litigation misconduct and other bad faith behavior, including what the district court termed "indicia of extortion." The Federal Circuit also affirmed the lower court's grant of sanctions under Rule 11 because Eon-Net filed "legally baseless" infringement contentions and failed to perform a proper pre-suit investigation. At the heart of the decision was the plaintiff's strategy of suing a large number of defendants in an attempt to extract quick "cost of defense" settlements, but without performing a proper pre-suit investigation against many of those companies.