572 U.S. 545 (2014) Cited 1,451 times 122 Legal Analyses
Holding that an "exceptional" case under § 285 is "one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigating position ... or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated"
510 U.S. 517 (1994) Cited 2,893 times 30 Legal Analyses
Holding that under the Copyright Act fee-shifting statute, 17 U.S.C. § 505, defendants and plaintiffs are to be treated the same, contrary to the Court's interpretation of § 1988
572 U.S. 559 (2014) Cited 341 times 41 Legal Analyses
Holding that a district court "abuse its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law" (quoting Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. , 496 U.S. 384, 405, 110 S. Ct. 2447, 2461, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990) )
Holding district court on remand could reduce requested rates based on "evidence that undermines the reasonableness of the rate requested" although the party opposing the request for fees had not previously introduced any evidence undermining requested rates
Holding that, to anticipate, a single prior art reference must not only disclose all the limitations claimed but also must disclose those limitations "arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim"
Holding a party must have "intended to impair the ability" of a litigant to put on a case or defend itself to find "bad faith" (quoting Schmid , 13 F.3d at 80 )
Holding party did not waive preemption argument by failing to raise it in its Rule 12(b) motion because "waiver is generally inapplicable to ‘significant questions of general impact or of great public concern.’ " (quoting Interactive Gift , 256 F.3d at 1345 )
Holding that case was exceptional where losing party filed multiple, repetitive motions and continued to litigate a position they already lost in court