Yue v. Reaction Labs, LLC
Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0), which credits Jesse Schaefer; document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.
W.D. Texas · Jan 20, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court vacated a preliminary injunction after finding the asserted patent vulnerable due to a USPTO non-final office action. Additionally, the court identified that the Counter-Plaintiff misrepresented legal authority in its briefing and that the original opinion contained invalid or non-existent case law citations.
- Why the court cared
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Court identified Lup's citation to Cummins-Allison Corp. v. SBM Co., No. 9:07-cv-196, 2009 WL 763926, at *10 as impossible because the cited order exists but is only eight pages long, making a page *10 citation incorrect. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court noted Lup's citation to Fiber Sys. Int'l v. Applied Optical Sys., 2009 WL 8590962, at *8-9 is incorrect because the order is only six pages and was published on June 24, 2009 (not March 2009) — indicating misdated/mispaginated citation.
- Why it matters now
- Verify pinpoint page cites against the actual opinion length before filing — impossible pincites are the cheapest hallucination tell.
Why this matter is tracked
In a patent infringement dispute, the court granted the Counter-Defendants' motion to vacate a preliminary injunction (PI) after the USPTO issued a non-final office action rejecting all claims of the asserted patent. During the proceedings, the court noted that the Counter-Plaintiff, Lup, misrepresented the court's reasoning in a cited case, DUSA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. River's Edge Pharmaceuticals, LLC, in its briefing. The court also addressed an editor's note regarding the original opinion, which contained incorrect or non-existent case law citations that were preserved in the official record. The court ultimately found that the USPTO's rejection rendered the patent vulnerable, failing the likelihood of success requirement for maintaining the PI.
Verify pinpoint page cites against the actual opinion length before filing — impossible pincites are the cheapest hallucination tell.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
The court granted the Counter-Defendants' Opposed Motion to Vacate Preliminary Injunction, vacating the PI previously issued against them.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Court identified Lup's citation to Cummins-Allison Corp. v. SBM Co., No. 9:07-cv-196, 2009 WL 763926, at *10 as impossible because the cited order exists but is only eight pages long, making a page *10 citation incorrect.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Court noted Lup's citation to Fiber Sys. Int'l v. Applied Optical Sys., 2009 WL 8590962, at *8-9 is incorrect because the order is only six pages and was published on June 24, 2009 (not March 2009) — indicating misdated/mispaginated citation.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Yue v. Reaction Labs, LLC?
- The court vacated a preliminary injunction after finding the asserted patent vulnerable due to a USPTO non-final office action. Additionally, the court identified that the Counter-Plaintiff misrepresented legal authority in its briefing and that the original opinion contained invalid or non-existent case law citations.
- Why does Yue v. Reaction Labs, LLC matter for legal AI risk?
- Verify pinpoint page cites against the actual opinion length before filing — impossible pincites are the cheapest hallucination tell.
- What does the public record establish about Yue v. Reaction Labs, LLC?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this Yue v. Reaction Labs, LLC summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.
Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases
One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.