Sentences with phrase «purposes of awarding fees»

1749 (2014) has been a real game changer as far as increasing the case - by - case discretion conferred on district judges to determine if a case is exceptional for purposes of awarding fees against a losing patent infringement litigant.

Not exact matches

Although under some laws HBO may have a right to an award of attorneys» fees and expenses if it prevails in an arbitration, HBO agrees that it will seek such an award only in the event that the substance of your claim or the relief sought has been deemed by the arbitrator to be frivolous or brought for an improper purpose (as measured by the standards set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (b)-RRB-.

The following transactions are excluded from earning points: BPAY transactions, payments to the Australian Taxation Office (effective 2/11/2015) unless made using a Business Awards card, balance transfers, cash advances (including a transaction treated by the Bank as a cash advance, for example, utility bills paid in person at a bank), purchases of foreign exchange, credit card insurance premiums, travellers cheques, interest charges, Qantas Frequent Flyer Direct fees, Bank fees, Card account payments, transactions deemed by the Bank to be for business purposes (excluding transactions on Business Awards, Business Gold Awards and Business Platinum Awards cards) and any other transactions which may from time to time be excluded by the Bank.

The District Court denied Kirtsaeng's motion, giving» «substantial weight» to the «objective reasonableness» of Wiley's infringement claim,» and stating that» «the imposition of a fee award against a copyright holder with an objectively reasonable» - although unsuccessful - «litigation position will generally not promote the purposes of the Copyright Act,»» and that no other factors «outweighed» that objective reasonableness to warrant fee - shifting.

Both Wiley and Kirtsaeng proposed that the Court provide guidance to district courts in order to direct their discretion in determining whether to award attorney's fees to a prevailing party «towar [d] the purposes of the Copyright Act,» which the Court articulates as «enriching the general public through access to creative works» and «enhancing the probability that both creators and users... will enjoy the substantive rights» provided by the Copyright Act.

1979 (2016): SCOTUS sets forth flexible factors to be weighed for purposes of district judges awarding fees to a prevailing party under the Copyright Act's fee - shifting provision, 17 U.S.C. § 505.

For purposes of this hypothetical, the trier of fact awards damages to the plaintiff in the amount of $ 25,000, and each party incurred a total of $ 50,000 in attorneys» fees and costs, with the losing party being responsible to pay the entire $ 125,000.

Usually, a winning SLAPP defendant has to apportion fees attributable to SLAPP activities, but this decision allows the trial judge to award extra-SLAPP fees as long as the other activities were «on the contract» under Civil Code section 1717 for purposes of fee recovery in the entire litigation matter.

PJI awards in serious accident cases have often been used to inflate damages awards by 5 % per annum, for the purpose of making allowances for lawyers» fees or to achieve other ends regarding the calculation of settlements.

In addition, if the arbitrator, at the request of the winning party, finds that the losing party brought a claim or asserted a defense frivolously or for an improper purpose, then regardless of the amount in dispute, the arbitrator must order the losing party to pay both sides» arbitration fees and may order the losing party to pay the winning party's reasonable attorneys» fees, unless such an award of fees is prohibited by applicable law.

1749, 1756, 1758 (2014), defining the flexibility given district judges to decide whether a patent case is exceptional for purposes of a fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

Except for a typographical correction of a small amount, Former Attorney — by having good records and showing a willingness to take the stand for purposes of explaining the overall litigation efforts — won a substantial fee award from Former Clients who, while disgruntled, apparently did not rebut that the performed services should be paid.