Jones Day Talks: Women in IP: The Supreme Court's "Copyright Day"
On February 25, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lackey v. Stinnie that plaintiffs who gain preliminary injunctive relief before an action becomes moot do not qualify as “prevailing parties” for attorney’s fees under 42...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Lackey v. Stinnie, 145 S. Ct. 659 (2025), limits the ability of civil rights litigants to recover their attorney fees under the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act, specifically...more
A recent Supreme Court ruling could impact your business by limiting when you must pay fees in employment litigation or when you may recover fees after challenging state regulations in court. In the Lackey v. Stinnie decision...more
On February 25, 2025, the United States Supreme Court held that plaintiffs who obtain a preliminary injunction are not eligible for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) because they do not qualify as “prevailing...more
The U.S. Supreme Court decided two cases yesterday, one of which, Lackey v. Stinnie, involved an action brought pursuant to 42 U. S. C. §1983 and should be of particular interest to the many readers of this blog who practice...more
The Supreme Court will begin a new term on October 7, and we’re watching several cases that will likely have a big impact on the workplace. The Justices will grapple with wage and hour issues, coverage under the Americans...more
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in two cases: Garland v. VanDerStok, No. 23-852: This administrative law and statutory interpretation case concerns the federal government’s ability to...more
On May 27, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States decided City of San Antonio, Texas v. Hotels.com, L.P., No. 20-334, holding that the federal courts of appeals have the discretion to apportion all the appellate costs...more
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued the following decision: San Antonio v. Hotels.com, L.P., No. 20-334: Although the general rule in litigation is that each side bears its own attorney’s fees, certain...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
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
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
In Rimini Street v. Oracle USA, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that the “full costs” the Copyright Act authorizes federal district courts to award a party in copyright litigation means the costs specified in the...more