News & Analysis as of

Prevailing Party Fee-Shifting

Farrell Fritz, P.C.

“Prevailing Party” Attorneys’ Fee Provisions

Farrell Fritz, P.C. on

Contracts with “prevailing party” provisions offer the tantalizing, coveted prospect of the winner recovering attorneys’ fees from the loser in legal disputes over the contract’s enforcement....more

Farrell Fritz, P.C.

Two Cases. Two Mammoth Fee Awards. Coup de Grâce or Pyrrhic Victory?

Farrell Fritz, P.C. on

Under a common-law doctrine successful litigants love to hate – the “American Rule” – a party to litigation cannot recover its legal fees unless a contract, statute, or court rule expressly authorizes fee-shifting to the...more

Pierce Atwood LLP

There’s No Tying in Litigation - Factors to Determine the Winner for Fee Shifting Provisions

Pierce Atwood LLP on

Deciding whether to include a prevailing party attorneys’ fee provision in a contract is important, as doing so has significant risk and cost implications of litigation. Prevailing party provisions foster dispute...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Change in Law Leading to Case Dismissal Doesn’t Preclude Attorneys’ Fees

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the symmetrical fee-shifting provision of the Copyright Act and whether a prevailing defendant was entitled to fees even when the plaintiff moved to dismiss the case in response to a change in law, the US Court of...more

Lowndes

Florida Senate Bill No. 540 Brings Changes to Comprehensive Plan Challenges and Cost Recovery for Developers

Lowndes on

On May 24, 2023, Governor DeSantis approved Florida Senate Bill No. 540. The bill, which will go into effect on July 1, 2023, provides that the prevailing party in a challenge to a comprehensive plan amendment is entitled to...more

Burns & Levinson LLP

Will Your Right to Indemnification Get You Your Attorneys’ Fees?

Burns & Levinson LLP on

Under the so-called “American Rule,” a party that prevails in litigation typically is not entitled to recover the costs, expenses and legal fees it has to expend to secure a judgment in its favor. As such, many business...more

Miller Nash LLP

Bank Liable for Attorneys’ Fees for “Prelitigation Bad Faith” Says Washington Court of Appeals

Miller Nash LLP on

In a recent decision, the Washington Court of Appeals established a new equitable exception to the American rule for attorneys’ fees, which generally denies an award of fees and costs to a prevailing party absent a...more

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP

Beware Fee Shifting Contract Clauses

Are they a good idea? Lawyers drafting or reviewing contracts should carefully consider whether a fee shifting clause serves the parties’ interests. Sometimes, perhaps often, they do not. Bonnie and Gus agreed that...more

Bilzin Sumberg

Florida State Courts Limit Parties’ Abilities to Recover Attorneys’ Fees

Bilzin Sumberg on

In a pair of recent decisions, Florida state courts reined in multiple statutes that allow for the recovery of attorneys’ fees. In one decision, the Florida Supreme Court adopted a relatively narrow reading of Florida’s...more

Lowndes

Pay Attention to Prevailing Party Fee Provisions

Lowndes on

It is routine in Florida leases to consider any prevailing party fee provision as automatically reciprocal due to Section 57.105(7), Florida Statutes. That Statute provides for reciprocity of attorneys’ fees even where a...more

Snell & Wilmer

Chancery Rules on Equitable Fee Shifting and Indemnity Provisions in Support of Fee Shifting

Snell & Wilmer on

On December 31, 2020, Vice Chancellor Glasscock issued an opinion regarding what he called a “novel issue” arising from cross motions for fees. The motions were supported by a contractual prevailing party fee provision which...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Supreme Court: Patent Office Cannot Be Reimbursed for Attorney and Paralegal Salaries

In Peters v. NantKwest, Inc., the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, held that the “all expenses of the proceedings” provision of a 35 U.S.C. § 145 civil appeal does not include the...more

Butler Snow LLP

Recovering Attorney’s Fees in Texas: Five Lessons

Butler Snow LLP on

Obtaining an award of attorneys’ fees might be the final step in a long-waged litigation battle but to do so successfully requires careful planning and diligence from the outset of a case. The Texas Supreme Court recently...more

Fish & Richardson

Supreme Court Holds USPTO Cannot Recover Its Attorney's Fees Under § 145

Fish & Richardson on

On December 11, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the long-standing presumption that parties are responsible for their own attorney’s fees—holding that the “[a]ll expenses of the proceedings” provision of...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Supreme Court: PTO Not Entitled to Attorney’s Fees in District Court Appeals

McDermott Will & Emery on

In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is not entitled to recover its attorney’s fees in an appeal to a district court...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Supreme Court Rejects PTO’s Attempt to Recover Attorneys’ Fees - Intellectual Property News

In Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., the Supreme Court held that the Patent and Trademark Office cannot recover attorneys’ fees against an applicant in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 145. An unsuccessful applicant for a patent has...more

Weintraub Tobin

U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down USPTO’s Request For Attorney’s Fees

Weintraub Tobin on

In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court in Peter v. NantKwest, case number 18-801, struck down the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) recent and often-criticized effort to recoup its legal fees – even in cases...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Supreme Court Rejects USPTO Attorney Fee Policy

On December 11, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) controversial policy of shifting attorneys’ fees in Peter v. NantKwest, Case No. 18-801. The Court ruled that the USPTO...more

Jones Day

U.S. Supreme Court: "All the Expenses" Does Not Include Attorney’s Fees - In Peter v. Nantkwest, Inc., the Supreme Court...

Jones Day on

The U.S. Supreme Court's recent 9-0 decision in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., Case No. 18-801, informs strategic cost considerations in appeals challenging adverse decisions issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office...more

McCarter & English, LLP

No Fees For You – Supreme Court Says USPTO May Not Recover Attorneys’ Fees For Defending Certain Appeals

McCarter & English, LLP on

Under the so-called American Rule, litigants are normally expected to pay their own attorneys’ fees, win or lose, unless a statute clearly permits or requires fee-shifting. In the underlying litigation in Peter v. NantKwest,...more

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Supreme Court Issues Unanimous Ruling Denying PTO Attorneys’ Fees for Section 145 Actions

On December 11, 2019, in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., 589 U.S. __ (2019), the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) cannot recover the salaries of its legal...more

Hogan Lovells

Supreme Court: USPTO Cannot Collect Attorney’s Fees Under 35 U.S.C. § 145

Hogan Lovells on

The Supreme Court held that the PTO cannot collect attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 145, which requires challengers of PTAB decisions to pay all expenses of the proceedings....more

Foley & Lardner LLP

American Rule Prevails; PTO May Not Collect In-House Attorneys' Fees as "Expenses"

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In a short opinion issued on December 11, 2019, the Supreme Court rejected the PTO’s recent attempt to collect attorneys’ fees under a little-used provision of the Patent Act. The decision in Peter v. NantKwest (No. 18-801)...more

Snell & Wilmer

Supreme Court Holds “Expenses” Exclude PTO Employee Salaries in Civil Action Challenges Under the Patent Act

Snell & Wilmer on

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) may not recover the salaries of its legal personnel as “expenses” in a civil action challenging an adverse decision by the PTO under...more

McDermott Will & Emery

SCOTUS Rules PTO Not Entitled to Attorney’s Fees in Appeals to E.D. Virginia from Adverse PTAB Decisions

McDermott Will & Emery on

On December 11, the US Supreme Court held that the US Patent and Trademark Office is not entitled to recover its attorney’s fees in an appeal to the Eastern District of Virgina from an adverse decision of the Patent Trial and...more

61 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 3

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide