Bereskin & Parr LLP
Subscribe Twitter Linked-in RSS
  • About Us
  • Our People






  • Services
  • News & Publications
  • Events
  • Offices
  • Students
  • Careers

News & Publications

FIND AN ARTICLE

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Keep informed about the latest news
and updates from Bereskin & Parr



 

Lindsey Robinson

MEDIA CONTACT
Lindsey Robinson
B.A. (Hons.), LLM
Manager, Business Development & Marketing
416.957.1663

 

 Bookmark this page  Print this page

U.S. Supreme Court Lowers the Bar for Awards of Legal Costs in Patent Lawsuits

April 30, 2014

Author: Paul Horbal

In a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court this week relaxed the standard for determining whether a successful litigant should be compensated for legal fees incurred in patent infringement lawsuits.

In recent years, the lower Federal Circuit Court had set a high bar for costs awards. Previously, a party needed to demonstrate that the lawsuit had been brought in “subjective bad faith” and was “objectively baseless”, or else involved “material inappropriate conduct”. Critics noted that this was a nearly impossible standard to meet – since bad faith and willful misconduct are very difficult to prove – and that this tilted the playing field too far in favour of so-called non-practising entities (NPEs), who had little to lose in asserting patents widely.

The U.S. Supreme Court has now held that costs awards are appropriate in an “exceptional” case; that is, a case that “stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position…or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated.” Evidence of bad faith or intentional misconduct is no longer required to prevail. Moreover, the Court held that the decisions of trial courts regarding costs should be afforded deference by appellate courts.

As a point of comparison, the Canadian patent litigation system has been relatively free of assertions by NPEs. There are other factors at play: the reluctance of Canadian courts to grant injunctions and our smaller market, for example. However, the threat of costs awards also serves to skew a “cost-benefit” analysis away from launching the sorts of “exceptional” lawsuits contemplated by the U.S. Supreme Court.

While the decision this week lowers the bar, costs awards in the United States are still far from automatic. Nevertheless, the decision should cause at least some prospective plaintiffs to reconsider the merits of their patent assertions.

Information on this website is for information only. It is not, and should not be taken as, legal advice. You should not rely on, or take or not take any action, based upon this information. Professional legal advice should be promptly obtained. Bereskin & Parr LLP professionals will be pleased to advise you.

 

About Us

Overview
People Clients Diversity and Inclusion

Accolades
Archives

Offices

Hours of Operation

Our People

All

Refine search by
Type Office Practice School

Services

Patents
Automotive Chemical Cleantech Electrical & Computer Technology Life Sciences Mechanical & Industrial Processes Medical Devices Nanotechnology Oil & Gas Plant Breeders’ Rights in Canada

Industrial Designs

Trademarks

Litigation

Financial Technology

IP Management & Strategic Counselling

Licensing & Transactions

Regulatory, Advertising & Marketing

Copyright & Digital Media

News & Publications

Newsroom
Archive

Articles
Article Archives

Newsletters

Media & Press

Litigation Cases
Patent Trademark Copyright

Subscribe

Webinars

Students

Overview

Articling Program

Summer Program

Recruitment
Articling Recruitment Second Year Recruitment First Year Recruitment Career Fairs

B&P Your University

Current Students

University Prizes

How to Apply

Events

Events Calendar

Student Events Calendar

Offices

Careers

Support Staff

Professionals

Students

Languages

English

Français

中国语

日本語

Search