1. “Whether affirmance of [28 U.S.C.] § 1927 sanctions based on ‘recklessness’ and ‘objective’ indicia, without an explicit finding of subjective bad faith, conflicts with Ninth Circuit precedent requiring a subjective bad-faith finding for § 1927 sanctions.”
2. “Whether, despite acknowledging that regional law governs § 1927, the panel applied an ‘objective’ formulation derived from non–Ninth Circuit authority that conflicts with the Ninth Circuit’s subjective bad-faith requirement.“
3. “Whether the imposition of a sanction under § 1927 in the Ninth Circuit based on the submission of actual evidence from one’s client, not previously considered by the District Court, to challenge a fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 will have a chilling effect on a client’s ability to find a lawyer willing to represent it.”
