Meritas Capability Webinar - Controlling Where to Fight and Who Pays for it?
Colorado, like most states, follows the “American Rule,” which requires parties to a lawsuit to pay their own legal expenses. There is a significant exception though, if the parties agree, in a contract clause known as a...more
The Court of Appeal for Bermuda has lately clarified two important aspects of the law of litigation costs in Bermuda: the test for indemnity costs and the availability of issue-based costs awards. In each respect the Court of...more
The introduction of the Employment and Discrimination Tribunal (Procedure) (Jersey) Amendment Order 2025 (Order) has significantly altered the costs regime in the Jersey Employment Tribunal. Having previously been a no-cost...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees to the defendant after it prevailed at trial in a copyright infringement suit, concluding that the district court adequately...more
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
A federal court in Connecticut reduced attorneys’ fees and costs sought by a sales representative after the court raised concerns about several issues with the sales representative’s trial strategy. Trade Links, LLC v. Bi-Qem...more
Judge Krupp, sitting in the Massachusetts Business Litigation Session, awarded a defendant more than $240,000 in attorneys’ fees, expenses, and interest under G.L. c. 231, § 6F, the Massachusetts statute authorizing fee...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
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
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
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
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
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