17 Cited authorities

Hensley v. Eckerhart
461 U.S. 424 (1983) Cited 21,571 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding a civil-rights plaintiff can recover attorney's fees for claims that "involve a common core of facts or will be based on related legal theories," even if only one of those claims arises under a fee-shifting statute
Blum v. Stenson
465 U.S. 886 (1984) Cited 8,815 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that fee shifting is “to be calculated according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community, regardless of whether plaintiff is represented by private or nonprofit counsel”
Imwalle v. Reliance Medical Products
515 F.3d 531 (6th Cir. 2008) Cited 898 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding fee award was not an abuse of discretion because "[u]nlike the plaintiff in Farrar, Imwalle was able to prove an 'actual, compensable injury'"
Reed v. Rhodes
179 F.3d 453 (6th Cir. 1999) Cited 537 times
Holding that "[the lodestar] amount can then be adjusted based on the Johnson factors"
Mathis v. Spears
857 F.2d 749 (Fed. Cir. 1988) Cited 198 times
Holding that interest runs from the date of the judgment authorizing the right to the award, not from the date of a later judgment establishing its exact amount
Central Soya Co. v. Geo. A. Hormel & Co.
723 F.2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 208 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that an "award of expenses was properly within the scope of § 285"
Lam, Inc. v. Johns-Manville Corp.
718 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Cited 208 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the patent owner may satisfy his initial burden by inference in a two-supplier market
Yamanouchi Pharma. v. Danbury Pharma
231 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 108 times 5 Legal Analyses
Finding that “an ordinary medicinal chemist” would not have expected the specific chemical structure to have the “most desirable combination of pharmacological properties”
Paschal v. Flagstar Bank
297 F.3d 431 (6th Cir. 2002) Cited 99 times
Adopting lodestar analysis in case alleging discrimination in mortgage lending
Takeda Chem. v. Mylan
549 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 66 times 4 Legal Analyses
Affirming award of "attorney fees and related expenses" under § 285
Section 1920 - Taxation of costs
28 U.S.C. § 1920 Cited 12,486 times 91 Legal Analyses
Referring only once to "expenses," and doing so solely to refer to special interpretation services provided in actions initiated by the United States

IN RE: Bill of Lading Transmission and Processing System Patent Litigation

17 Cited authorities

Holding a civil-rights plaintiff can recover attorney's fees for claims that "involve a common core of facts or will be based on related legal theories," even if only one of those claims arises under a fee-shifting statute

Holding that fee shifting is “to be calculated according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community, regardless of whether plaintiff is represented by private or nonprofit counsel”

Holding fee award was not an abuse of discretion because "[u]nlike the plaintiff in Farrar, Imwalle was able to prove an 'actual, compensable injury'"

Holding that "[the lodestar] amount can then be adjusted based on the Johnson factors"

Holding that interest runs from the date of the judgment authorizing the right to the award, not from the date of a later judgment establishing its exact amount

Holding that an "award of expenses was properly within the scope of § 285"

Holding that the patent owner may satisfy his initial burden by inference in a two-supplier market

Finding that “an ordinary medicinal chemist” would not have expected the specific chemical structure to have the “most desirable combination of pharmacological properties”

Adopting lodestar analysis in case alleging discrimination in mortgage lending

Affirming award of "attorney fees and related expenses" under § 285

Referring only once to "expenses," and doing so solely to refer to special interpretation services provided in actions initiated by the United States