concurring.
I fully join the thorough opinion by Judge Bryson which carefully analyzes all the panel’s grounds for reversing the district court’s sanctions.
However, the court’s opinion should not be understood as in any way impeding the desirability and ability of district court *967judges to control their courtrooms and ensure that substantive arguments are reasonably based.
Many patent suits are brought these days with little chance of success. Appeals to this court from summary judgments of non-infringement based on claim constructions that are affirmed here are testament to the frequency of non-meritorious claims brought in the district courts. Whether those suits are brought because of poor and non-objective appraisals of plaintiffs’ prospects or for less worthy motives I do not know. But district court judges are entirely justified, when they encounter frivolous claims and/or excessively hardball tactics, in imposing sanctions on offending parties. They are enforcing respect for the courts and the rights of innocent parties to be free of unjustified claims.
In this case, there certainly were a number of instances during the proceedings below where the court felt that counsel had overstepped its bounds with their arguments. We reversed because, as tellingly explained by Judge Bryson, each incident had explanations that the panel believed were exonerating. But our action in this case should not be viewed by district court judges as chilling their taking charge of their courtrooms and ensuring that proper arguments are made against proper opponents.
With those comments, I fully join in the court’s opinion and judgment.