Jones Day Talks: Women in IP: The Supreme Court's "Copyright Day"
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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