News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States › Prevailing Party › Attorney's Fees

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary... more +
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term.  The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -
Husch Blackwell LLP

Supreme Court Sets the Bar for Recovering Attorneys' Fees in Civil Rights Cases

Husch Blackwell LLP on

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

Snell & Wilmer

U.S. Supreme Court Limits Section 1988 Attorney’s Fees for Property Owners and Other Civil Rights Litigants

Snell & Wilmer on

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

Fisher Phillips

SCOTUS Makes It Harder for Plaintiffs to Recover Attorney’s Fees: How a Driver’s License Case Could Impact Employers

Fisher Phillips on

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

Venable LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Decision Prohibits Plaintiff Recovery of Attorney’s Fees After a Preliminary Injunction Win

Venable LLP on

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

Epstein Becker & Green

A Preliminary Injunction Does Not a “Prevailing Party” Make, Criminal Conviction Through Knowingly False Evidence Violates Due...

Epstein Becker & Green on

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

Fisher Phillips

5 SCOTUS Cases for Employers to Track as 2024/2025 Term Begins

Fisher Phillips on

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

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court Update - April 22, 2024

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

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

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court - May 27, 2021

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

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

Fish & Richardson

Supreme Court Holds USPTO Cannot Recover Its Attorney's Fees Under § 145

Fish & Richardson on

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

McDermott Will & Emery

Supreme Court: PTO Not Entitled to Attorney’s Fees in District Court Appeals

McDermott Will & Emery on

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

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Supreme Court Rejects PTO’s Attempt to Recover Attorneys’ Fees - Intellectual Property News

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

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

Weintraub Tobin

U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down USPTO’s Request For Attorney’s Fees

Weintraub Tobin on

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

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Supreme Court Rejects USPTO Attorney Fee Policy

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints on

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

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC on

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

Jones Day

U.S. Supreme Court: "All the Expenses" Does Not Include Attorney’s Fees - In Peter v. Nantkwest, Inc., the Supreme Court...

Jones Day on

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

McCarter & English, LLP

No Fees For You – Supreme Court Says USPTO May Not Recover Attorneys’ Fees For Defending Certain Appeals

McCarter & English, LLP on

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

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Supreme Court Issues Unanimous Ruling Denying PTO Attorneys’ Fees for Section 145 Actions

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP on

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

Hogan Lovells

Supreme Court: USPTO Cannot Collect Attorney’s Fees Under 35 U.S.C. § 145

Hogan Lovells on

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

Foley & Lardner LLP

American Rule Prevails; PTO May Not Collect In-House Attorneys' Fees as "Expenses"

Foley & Lardner LLP on

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

Snell & Wilmer

Supreme Court Holds “Expenses” Exclude PTO Employee Salaries in Civil Action Challenges Under the Patent Act

Snell & Wilmer on

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

McDermott Will & Emery

SCOTUS Rules PTO Not Entitled to Attorney’s Fees in Appeals to E.D. Virginia from Adverse PTAB Decisions

McDermott Will & Emery on

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

Cooley LLP

Alert: Supreme Court Rejects USPTO’s Attempt to Extract Legal Fees for District Court Appeals

Cooley LLP on

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

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Peter v. NantKwest, Inc.

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

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

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

EEOC Ordered To Pay $1.9 Million For Frivolous Claims Against Trucking Company

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

Seyfarth Synopsis: In the latest chapter of the ongoing legal battle between the EEOC and delivery company CRST Van Expedited regarding the agency’s sexual harassment claims, a federal district court ordered the EEOC to pay...more

Buchalter

The Supreme Court Clarifies Standard For Attorney Fee Awards In Copyright Cases

Buchalter on

Copyright infringement litigation has been on the rise in recent years, particularly in the Central District of California, with the apparel industry feeling the brunt of this uptick. In a typical case, a plaintiff alleges...more

61 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 3
Next »

"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:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide