Retailpatentlitigation.com, here.
Showing posts with label fee-shifting in patent cases. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fee-shifting in patent cases. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
Thursday, August 14, 2014
Monday, June 02, 2014
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
SCOTUS on the legal standard for shifting attorney's fees in patent litigation
Octane Fitness v. Icon Health and Fitness, here.
"We crafted the Noerr-Pennington doctrine—and carved out only a narrow exception for “sham” litigation—to avoid chilling the exercise of the First Amendment right to petition the government for the redress of grievances...But to the extent that patent suits are similarly protected as acts of petitioning, it is not clear why the shifting of fees in an “exceptional” case would diminish that right. The threat of antitrust liability (and the attendant treble damages, 15 U. S. C. §15) far more significantly chills the exercise of the right to petition than does the mere shifting of attorney’s fees. In the Noerr-Pennington context, defendants seek immunity from a judicial declaration that their filing of a lawsuit was actually unlawful; here, they seek immunity from a far less onerous declaration that they should bear the costs of that lawsuit in exceptional cases."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Aka " From Digital Feudalism to Digital Sovereignty " - UCL IIPP, blog and video here. First of all, I strongly recommend watching...
-
P. Krugman, here. [In 2017 (!) I had the honour of talking about fintech, competition, and the PSD2 to a Brazilian audience - people were...
-
Not the usual Competition Commissioner's statement. Whole-of-Commission Approach? EC, here . [Dutch company buying an US company, mind...
-
M. Kirkwood, here.
-
Article 19 et al., here . Activating the full DMA's potential (Episode XX, still only scratching the surface): "Article 27 Infor...
-
Bloomberg, here .
-
Podcast with M. Mazzucato, here.