Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Supreme Court of The United States: Overhauser Law Offices LLC
Supreme Court of The United States: Overhauser Law Offices LLC
No. 15375
_________________
1 Com pa r e, e.g., Ma tth ew Ben d er & Co. v. West P u blish in g Co., 240
F . 3d 116, 122 (CA2 2001) (givin g su bst a n t ia l weigh t t o object ive
r ea son a blen ess), wit h , e.g., Bon d v. Blu m , 317 F . 3d 385, 397398 (CA4
2003) (en dor sin g a t ot a lit y-of-t h e-cir cu m st a n ces a ppr oa ch , wit h ou t
a ccor din g specia l sign ifica n ce t o a n y fa ct or ), a n d wit h , e.g., H oga n
S ystem s, In c. v. Cyber sou r ce In tl, In c., 158 F . 3d 319, 325 (CA5 1998)
(pr esu m in g t h a t a pr eva ilin g pa r t y r eceives fees).
2 Th is
10
t wo differ en t qu est ion s: wh et h er a defen da n t in fa ct in fr in ged a copyr igh t a n d wh et h er h e m a de ser iou s a r gu m en t s in defen se of h is con du ct . Cou r t s ever y da y see
r ea son a ble defen ses t h a t u lt im a t ely fa il (ju st a s t h ey see
r ea son a ble cla im s t h a t com e t o n ot h in g); in t h is con t ext , a s
in a n y ot h er , t h ey a r e ca pa ble of dist in gu ish in g bet ween
t h ose defen ses (or cla im s) a n d t h e object ively u n r ea son a ble va r iet y. An d if som e cou r t con fu ses t h e issu e of lia bilit y wit h t h a t of r ea son a blen ess, it s fee a wa r d sh ou ld be
r ever sed for a bu se of discr et ion .3
All of t h a t sa id, object ive r ea son a blen ess ca n be on ly a n
im por t a n t fa ct or in a ssessin g fee a pplica t ion sn ot t h e
con t r ollin g on e. As we r ecogn ized in F oger ty, 505 con fer s br oa d discr et ion on dist r ict cou r t s a n d, in decidin g
wh et h er t o fee-sh ift , t h ey m u st t a ke in t o a ccou n t a r a n ge
of con sider a t ion s beyon d t h e r ea son a blen ess of lit iga t in g
posit ion s. See su pr a , a t 4. Th a t m ea n s in a n y given ca se
a cou r t m a y a wa r d fees even t h ou gh t h e losin g pa r t y
offer ed r ea son a ble a r gu m en t s (or , con ver sely, den y fees
even t h ou gh t h e losin g pa r t y m a de u n r ea son a ble on es).
3 Kir t sa en g
11
12
*
*
Th e ju dgm en t of t h e Cou r t of Appea ls is va ca t ed, a n d
t h e ca se is r em a n ded for fu r t h er pr oceedin gs con sist en t
wit h t h is opin ion .
It is so or d er ed .