Supreme Court Smacks Down CAFC Again: Says Courts Have More Free Rein In Awarding Attorneys Fees
from the this-text-is-patently-clear dept
Yet again (in what has become quite the trend), the Supreme Court has struck down a ruling by the appeals court for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) -- the court that is somewhat infamous for almost always favoring patent maximalism. In a related pair of cases, the Supreme Court has now rejected the CAFC's rather strict rules for awarding attorneys fees in bogus patent litigation. The Supreme Court, once again, seems positively mystified by the CAFC's interpretation of patent law, and the fact that CAFC's rules (which all but eliminated attorney fees) seemed to have no basis in the law at all.As Justice Sotomayor's ruling (representing a basically unanimous court -- Justice Scalia didn't want to be a part of some random footnotes) notes, the CAFC's rules are way too "rigid" and go beyond what the law says (and what Congress intended).
The framework established by the Federal Circuit in Brooks Furniture is unduly rigid, and it impermissibly encumbers the statutory grant of discretion to district courts.The problem, of course, is that CAFC redefined "exceptional" to mean something extreme -- when there was "material inappropriate" behavior -- which goes well beyond what "exceptional" means.
Our analysis begins and ends with the text of §285: “The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” This text is patently clear. It imposes one and only one constraint on district courts’ discretion to award attorney’s fees in patent litigation: The power is reserved for “exceptional” cases.
The Federal Circuit’s formulation is overly rigid. Under the standard crafted in Brooks Furniture , a case is “exceptional” only if a district court either finds litigation-related misconduct of an independently sanctionable magnitude or determines that the litigation was both “brought in subjective bad faith” and “objectively baseless.” 393 F. 3d, at 1381. This formulation superimposes an inflexible framework onto statutory text that is inherently flexibleFee shifting is part of what's being fought over in the current attempts at patent reform. While it's good to see the Court make it slightly easier to get attorneys' fees, it would be much better if Congress went even further in making it abundantly clear that bogus patent suits will lead to awards of attorneys fees.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: attorneys fees, cafc, patents, supreme court
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I can't tell if this use of language was meant to use the dictionary version of patently (ie- obvious) or the IP version of patently (ie- novel and requiring protection). It actually works in either parse, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Natural language fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like cops who plant drugs on people they pull over, sometimes you gotta make sure you have something to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think of the poor, starving parasites man!
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Imagine the small guy being fully able to fight the bully? Of course this ain't happening anytime soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nine Seniles ot CAFC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
smack down *again*
So, every Supreme Court case will be a "smack down" of the Federal Circuit. But it still makes for a sensationalist headline I suppose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scalia and the notes
In this decision, the interpretation was made on the pure text, but Sotomeyor pointed out in three notes that this interpretation was additionally consistent with the legislative history Scalia was just being philosophically pissy, since the particular notes aren't substantive to the decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]