Supremes Allow Paralegal Fees Recovery At Market Rates
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 06.03.08
Reversing contrary Board and Federal Circuit rulings, the Supreme Court in Richlin Sec. Serv. Co. v. Chertoff (June 2, 2008, http://www.supreme courtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1717.pdf) unanimously ruled that the Equal Access to Justice Act allows a client to recover market rate paralegal fees charged to the client, not just the cost of the paralegal to the attorney retained by the client. The Supreme Court ruled that paralegal fees are implied in the term "attorneys fees" in the statute and are subject to the same per-hour limitations.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25
Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims. Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.14.25
Microplastics Update: Regulatory and Litigation Developments in 2025
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.13.25
