News & Analysis as of

Attorney's Fees Supreme Court of the United States Appeals

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - May 2024 #4

LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, Appeal No. 2021-2348 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2024) - In a rare en banc opinion, the Federal Circuit overruled decades of prior precedent concerning the standard to...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Still Exceptional: Fee-Shift Appropriate in View of Noninfringement Stipulation

McDermott Will & Emery on

In a split decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s award of more than $5 million in attorneys’ fees, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the...more

King & Spalding

The U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Decide Cases Regarding Whether and When Non-U.S. Plaintiffs May Use RICO to Enforce Foreign...

King & Spalding on

On January 13, 2023, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear two related cases in which it will decide for the first time whether and in what circumstances a foreign (non-U.S.) plaintiff may bring a civil action under...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

SCOTUS Agrees to Consider Whether Copyright Act Section 411 Requires an Intent to Defraud

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to tackle a technical copyright registration question: when a defendant alleges knowing inaccuracies in a copyright registration, does 17 U.S.C. § 411 require referral to the...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

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

A Divided Eleventh Circuit Holds that Incentive Awards are Prohibited

In a decision that may have far-reaching consequences, a divided panel of the Eleventh Circuit ruled that incentive awards to named plaintiffs—which are routine in TCPA and other class action settlements—are improper. See...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Federal Circuitry

Orders of Interest Roundup

At Federal Circuitry blog, we like to check in once in a while on what the Federal Circuit is doing in its orders that don’t get posted on the public website. Those orders often offer nuggets about practice at the Federal...more

Jones Day

Post-Taggart, Ninth Circuit BAP Holds That "No Fair Ground of Doubt" Standard Applies to Automatic Stay Violations

Jones Day on

In Taggart v. Lorenzen, 139 S. Ct. 1795 (June 3, 2019), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a bankruptcy court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for attempting to collect on a debt that has been discharged in bankruptcy "if...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

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

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

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

Farrell Fritz, P.C.

To Be (Held in Contempt) or Not To Be? That Is the (Bankruptcy) Question

Farrell Fritz, P.C. on

Recently, the United States Supreme Court in Taggart v. Lorenzen set the legal standard that should be followed by bankruptcy courts when determining whether to hold a creditor in civil contempt for attempting to collect a...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Require Applicants to Pay USPTO’s Attorney Fees in District Court “Appeals” of Prosecution Decisions

A patent applicant dissatisfied with a decision by the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) has two options for review of that decision. Most commonly—by far—the applicant can appeal the decision to the U.S. Court...more

Rumberger | Kirk

The Supreme Court Hands Down a New Standard for Bankruptcy Discharge Violations

Rumberger | Kirk on

On June 3, 2019, Justice Breyer delivered a unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court conclusively establishing the standard courts must apply to hold a creditor in civil contempt for violation of a bankruptcy discharge order....more

Jones Day

From the Top in Brief - August 2019

Jones Day on

On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Taggart v. Lorenzen, 139 S. Ct. 1795 (2019), that a bankruptcy court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for attempting to collect on a debt that has been discharged in...more

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Creditors Beware: Collection of Debt Based on Unreasonable Belief/Understanding That the Debt Was Not Discharged in Bankruptcy...

In Taggart v. Lorenzen, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' Order, which affirmed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's Order vacating civil contempt sanctions against Bradley Taggart's ("Bradley")...more

Fox Rothschild LLP

United States Supreme Court Holds That An “Objective Analysis” Applies To Determine Whether Civil Contempt Is Appropriate For A...

Fox Rothschild LLP on

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine the applicable legal standard for holding a creditor in civil contempt when a creditor attempts to collect a debt that falls within an issued bankruptcy...more

Ward and Smith, P.A.

Supreme Court Sets Standard for Bankruptcy Discharge Violations

Ward and Smith, P.A. on

When your customer is in bankruptcy, there are two major no-nos that you must remember. First, don't violate the automatic stay, which prevents a creditor from attempting to collect a debt while the debtor is in bankruptcy...more

Ballard Spahr LLP

SCOTUS Adopts "No Fair Ground of Doubt" Standard for Violations of Bankruptcy Discharge Order

Ballard Spahr LLP on

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled recently in Taggart v. Lorenzen that a creditor in a bankruptcy case may be held in civil contempt, and subject to sanction, where there is "no fair ground of doubt" about...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Supreme Court Decides Civil Contempt Standard for Violations of Discharge Orders

Successful bankruptcy cases typically end with a court order releasing a debtor from liability for most pre-bankruptcy debts. This order, generally known as a “discharge order,” prohibits the debtor’s creditors from trying to...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Where a “Fair Ground of Doubt” Can Create Comfort: Taggart v. Lorenzen

In a unanimous, and perhaps unsurprising, decision, the Supreme Court determined that a creditor may be held in civil contempt for violating the discharge injunction if there is “no fair ground of doubt” as to whether the...more

McCarter & English, LLP

Creditors May Be Held In Contempt For Violating A Bankruptcy Discharge Order If There Is “No Fair Ground Of Doubt”

The U.S. Supreme Court has established an objective standard for determining whether a creditor should be held in civil contempt when the creditor attempts to collect a debt subject to a bankruptcy discharge order....more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Taggart v. Lorenzen

On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Taggart v. Lorenzen, No. 18-489, holding that a court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for violating a bankruptcy court’s discharge order as long as there is “no fair ground of...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Culbertson v. Berryhill

On January 8, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Culbertson v. Berryhill, No. 17-773, holding that the Social Security Act permits an attorney fee award greater than 25 percent of the claimant’s past-due...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Murphy v. Smith, No. 16-1067

On February 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court decided Murphy v. Smith, No. 16-1067, holding that when a prisoner receives a judgment under certain civil rights statutes, the district court must apply as much of the...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

2017 Supreme Court and Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit, With Some Significant Cases from 2016

Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more

41 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"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