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
Last week we saw the Menard court reject the use of an indemnity clause to shift fees in a dispute between contracting parties. This week, a very recent decision from Nevada highlights another creative way to shift fees where...more
The “American Rule” on attorneys’ fees is that each party pays its own lawyers, even if you win. As with almost any rule, there are exceptions. Sometimes there is a statute that requires the losing party to pay the prevailing...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
Following up on the question posed in a post from a few years ago: when clients ask whether they can “sue for legal fees,” the courts continue to reiterate that the answer is almost always no; that the American Rule still...more
An accurate assessment of damages is critical for case evaluation, and the cost of dispute resolution plays an important role in deciding to pursue claims. Even strong liability cases can fail to make economic sense. That is...more
In re Shayne Allan Steen and Tracie Melissa Cole, Case No. 20-50042 (Bankr. N.D. Tex, July 7, 2021) deals with a debtor’s attorneys’ fees incurred in defending the debtor in a non-dischargeability adversary proceeding filed...more
Betty Frison invented a product related to hair weaving and subsequently entered into an agreement with Davison Design to promote her product. The agreement required that the parties arbitrate any dispute. After believing...more
In Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Almirall, LLC, the Federal Circuit recently found 35 U.S.C. § 285 did not authorize the Court awarding attorney’s fees for conduct occurring at the PTAB. No. 2020-1106, 2020 WL 2961939, at *2...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
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
On December 11, 2019, the US Supreme Court issued a unanimous order in Peter v. NantKwest, holding that a statute allowing the USPTO to recover "expenses" for appeals of patent refusals to a district court does not allow the...more
On December 11, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., No. 18-801, holding that Section 145 of the Patent Act does not require dissatisfied patent applicants who file a civil action in...more