Where factual issues are raised or a party has withdrawn consent, the only method available to enforce an agreement within the meaning of Rule 11 is summary judgment or judicial proceedings. In Baylor College of Med. v. Camberg, the non-injurious party, asserted its right to the application of the agreement at issue “by an amended memorandum or a counter-appeal to assert an infringement”. There is nothing in the registration to indicate that Baylor applied an appropriate procedure to enforce a settlement agreement pursuant to Rule 11, after the parties proposed different interpretations of the agreement. Baylor did not apply for a summary judgment on the interpretation of the agreement within the meaning of Rule 11. Allowing a controversial agreement to be applied under Rule 11, simply upon request and at the hearing, would deprive a party of the right to be confronted with appropriate pleadings, to make defences, to make discoveries and to submit contentious factual issues to a judge or jury. (4) Type of penalty. A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of or similar conduct by others who find themselves similar.
The sanction may include non-monetary directives; a judicial order to pay a penalty; or, if imposed and justified for effective deterrence, an order directing the mover to pay some or all reasonable attorneys` fees and other expenses resulting directly from the offence. It is expressly provided that the parties to the trial are informed of the alleged infringement and have the opportunity to react before imposing sanctions. Whether the case should be decided solely on the basis of written submissions or for oral proceedings (or even for the presentation of evidence) depends on the circumstances. If the Tribunal imposes a sanction, unless it waives it, it must specify the reasons for the sanction in a written order or in a notice of violation; the court should not normally be obliged to declare that it refuses to seek sanctions. The existence of an infringement and, where appropriate, the penalties applicable in the event of an infringement shall be at the discretion of the Tribunal; Accordingly, under current legislation, the measure of appeal of these decisions will be abuse of discretion. See Cooter &Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S.