Cooter Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.
496 U.S. 384 (1990) Cited 4,146 times 6 Legal AnalysesHolding that it is necessarily an abuse of discretion to apply the wrong legal standard
Alyeska Pipeline Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y
421 U.S. 240 (1975) Cited 4,731 times 9 Legal AnalysesHolding American Rule governed absent specific statutory authorization for awarding attorney fees to prevailing party
Phillips v. AWH Corp.
415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 5,735 times 164 Legal AnalysesHolding that "because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence"
Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper
447 U.S. 752 (1980) Cited 2,865 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that a court may impose attorney's fee sanction against opposing counsel for “abusive litigation practices” only in “narrowly defined circumstances,” including where the court makes a finding that “counsel's conduct ... constituted or was tantamount to bad faith”
Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.
90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) Cited 4,323 times 10 Legal AnalysesHolding that a claim construction that excludes the preferred embodiment is "rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support"
Business Guides v. Chromatic Comm. Enterprises
498 U.S. 533 (1991) Cited 903 timesHolding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 was not a fee-shifting provision because Rule 11 sanctions were not “tied to the outcome of litigation,” instead turning on whether a “specific filing” was well founded, and shifted the costs of a “discrete” portion of the litigation rather than the litigation as a whole
Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc.
138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) Cited 1,573 times 42 Legal AnalysesHolding that claim construction was purely a matter of law and therefore subject to de novo review
Austin v. City County of Honolulu
488 U.S. 852 (1988) Cited 367 timesHolding that the plaintiff could not recover unless it established that the defendant's actions were motivated by malice toward the plaintiff rather than by the presence of its own economic interests
Eastway Const. Corp. v. City of New York
762 F.2d 243 (2d Cir. 1985) Cited 1,192 timesHolding Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 requires sanctions against "an attorney and/or his client when it appears that a pleading has been interposed for any improper purpose, or where, after reasonable inquiry, a competent attorney could not form a reasonable belief that the pleading is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law."
Wallis v. Justice Oaks II, Ltd.
498 U.S. 959 (1990) Cited 202 timesApplying Wilder analysis; upholding private enforcement of "editorial control" provisions in Cable Communications Policy Act
Rule 11 - Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 Cited 36,029 times 145 Legal AnalysesHolding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney
Section 1927 - Counsel's liability for excessive costs
28 U.S.C. § 1927 Cited 8,865 times 81 Legal AnalysesGranting courts the power to charge "excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred" due to "unreasonabl[e] and vexatious" conduct
Section 285 - Attorney fees
35 U.S.C. § 285 Cited 3,208 times 481 Legal AnalysesGranting district courts discretion to award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in exceptional cases