'Radical' IP Atty Fee Claim Doesn't Strike Justices' Interest

By Dani Kass (May 17, 2021, 7:29 PM EDT) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a patent-holding company's attempt to limit when district court judges can make plaintiffs in frivolous patent cases cover attorney fees.

WPEM LLC's March 16 petition had called U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap's decision to make it pay fees after a failed patent suit a "radical expansion" on the court's powers. But the justices weren't persuaded, and rejected the petition without further comment.

The petition was rejected at the high court before the opposing party, SOTI Inc., had a chance to file an opposition or waive its right to do so, according to the court's...

Stay ahead of the curve

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.


  • Access to case data within articles (numbers, filings, courts, nature of suit, and more.)
  • Access to attached documents such as briefs, petitions, complaints, decisions, motions, etc.
  • Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and so much more!

TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS

Attached Documents

Related Sections

Case Information

Case Title

Subscribers Only

Case Number

Subscribers Only

Court

Subscribers Only

Nature of Suit

Subscribers Only

Judge

Subscribers Only

Date Filed

Subscribers Only

Law Firms

Government Agencies

Patents

Judge Analytics

Hello! I'm Law360's automated support bot.

How can I help you today?

For example, you can type:
  • I forgot my password
  • I took a free trial but didn't get a verification email
  • How do I sign up for a newsletter?
Ask a question!