News & Analysis as of

Patents Litigation Fees & Costs Prevailing Party

Jones Day

Third Party IPRs Sway District Court’s Prevailing Party and Costs Rulings

Jones Day on

Third-party IPRs can moot previously favorable decisions and leave a previously successful party to bear its own costs. On October 16, 2024, Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied the plaintiff’s Motion to be Confirmed as the...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

United Cannabis Corporation v. Pure Hemp Collective Inc.

This case addresses whether attorney’s fees are warranted due to an inequitable conduct and conflict of interest defense. Background - UCANN filed suit in the District of Colorado in July 2018, accusing Pure Hemp of...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Update: Absent Explicit Statutory Language? The American Rule Still Applies

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit updated its earlier opinion to remove language ascribing motive to a prolific inventor’s actions before the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO). Hyatt v. Hirshfeld, Case Nos....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

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - December 2019 #2

PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Peter v. Nantkwest, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-801 (Sup. Ct. Dec. 11, 2019) - This week the Supreme Court answered a long-simmering question concerning the extent to which a person who brings a...more

McDermott Will & Emery

No Judgment on Merits Necessary to Achieve Prevailing Party Status

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court finding that an accused infringer was the “prevailing party” entitled to fees under Rule 54(d)(1) when the patent owner’s claim was dismissed for...more

Knobbe Martens

Costs Awarded to Defendant After Case Dismissed for Mootness

Knobbe Martens on

B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C. v. FACEBOOK, INC. Before Lourie, Plager, and O’Malley. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. Summary: A decision on the merits is not a prerequisite...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - October 2019 #2

PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - HZNP Medicines LLC v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-2149, et al. (Fed. Cir. Oct. 10, 2019) - In a lengthy decision following a bench trial, the Court addressed a matter of...more

Snell & Wilmer

SCOTUS to Consider USPTO’s Attorneys’ Fees Policy

Snell & Wilmer on

On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Iancu v. NantKwest to resolve a circuit split concerning “expenses” a patent applicant must pay when challenging the United States Patent and Trademark...more

Mintz

A “Solution” in Search of a Problem? The Innovation Act of 2015 and Trends in Fee-shifting in Patent Litigation

Mintz on

On February 5, 2015, Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-VA) introduced H.R. 9, entitled the “Innovation Act.” Among other things, the bill would direct courts to award attorneys’ fees and litigation-related expenses to prevailing...more

10 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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