Four Make The Grade.
Our friends at the National Association of Legal Fee Analysis (NALFA) have posted their top four significant decisions for 2014.
Here they are:
1. Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014) and Hallmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1744 (2014) are two companion rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding patent litigation fee-shifting. Section 285 of the Patent Act authorizes a district court to award attorney’s fees in patent litigation in "exceptional cases" – that is, cases which stand out from the others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated. In Octane Fitness, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that district courts should determine whether a case is exceptional “in the case-by-case exercise of their discretion, considering the totality of the circumstances.” In line with this decision, Hallmark decided that Section 285 fee awards were to be reviewed under the abuse-of-discretion standard. [Discussed in our May 8, 2014 post.]
2. ATP Tour Inc. v. Deutscher Tennis Bund, 91 A.3d 554 (Del. 2014) is a decision in which the Delaware Supreme Court held that a by-law shifting attorney fees and expenses to the losing party in an intra-corporate litigation can be valid and enforceable under Delaware law. The Delaware Legislature has pushed off consideration of whether to abrogate or modify this result until sometime in 2015. [Discussed in our May 31, 2014 post.]
3. Baker Botts LLP v. ASARCO LLC, 751 F.3d 291 (5th Cir. 2014), cert. granted, No. 14-103, before the U.S. Supreme Court, centers upon the issue of whether Section 330(a) of the Bankruptcy Code grants bankruptcy judges discretion to award compensation for the defense of a fee application (i.e., fees for fees). The Fifth Circuit said “no,” even though other courts have said “yes.” [Discussed in our Oct. 2, 2014 post.]
4. Holland v. Jachmann, 9 N.E.3d 340 (Mass.App. 2014) is a situation where a Massachusetts appellate court held that trial judges have discretion to award attorney fees for work performed by in-house counsel for claims brought under the state’s unfair trade practices law. The court held that in-house fees were just as “incurred” as fees paid/owed by a company to outside counsel. [Discussed in our June 12, 2014 post, indicating California’s position on the subject.]