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 | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
