Footnote two is a contender for funniest Supreme Court footnote this term.

Justia’s Summary:

Kirtsaeng bought low-cost foreign edition textbooks in Thailand and resold them to students in the U.S. In 2013 the Supreme Court held that Kirtsaeng could invoke the Copyright Act’s “first-sale doctrine,” 17 U.S.C. 109(a), as a defense to the publisher’s

Ninth Circuit reminds us that it already has decided that it is not bound to apply Octane Fitness’ (134 S. Ct. 1749) definition of “exceptional” in the context of the Lanham Act’s fee-shifting provision. Rather than evaluate ‘exceptional’ under a ‘totality of circumstances’ test, the Ninth Circuit will look to whether there was ‘malicious, fraudulent,

Noting the similarity between the language of Section 285 of the Patent Act, the Fifth Circuit extends Octane Fitness to cover Section 1117(a) of the Lanham Act as to what constittutes an exceptional case for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees. Departing from the standard that ‘exceptional’ means a case that is brought in bad faith,

Plaintiff sues its licensee. Licsensee prevails, brings motions for fees and costs, alleging that plaintiff had brought this litigation as a ploy to re-negotiate the license. It alleged that plaintiff had brought similar litigation against another licensee in order to ‘re-negotiate’ license, brought mertiless discovery, brought meritless dilution claim, abandoned ADR process, made meritless defense