U.S. Code » Title 25 » Chapter CHAPTER 7— EDUCATION OF INDIANS

25 U.S.C. § 285

Repealed. Pub. L. 117–317, § 2(10), Dec. 27, 2022, 136 Stat. 4419

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 25 CasesGoogle Scholar

[repealed]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. All-Tag Sec. S.A., 858 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. All-Tag Sec. S.A., 858 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “The award of attorney fees under 25 U.S.C. § 285 is reversed. REVERSED 1 .”
Levin v. Septodont, Inc., 34 F. App'x 65 (4th Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “Subsequently, Septodont filed a motion for attorney fees under 25 U.S.C. § 285 , which authorizes courts to award attorney fees to the "prevailing party" in "exceptional" patent cases.”
DietGoal Innovations, LLC v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 3d 680 (E.D. Va. 2015). · cites it 2× “filed a Motion for Attorney Fees (Motion for an Exceptional Case Finding Under 25 U.S.C. § 285 , for Attorney’s Fees and to Join Plaintiffs Principals).”
Wesley Jessen Corp. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 209 F. Supp. 2d 348 (D. Del. 2002). “3, there is no basis for a determination that this is an “exceptional case,” under 25 U.S.C. § 285 . Accordingly, as noted above, it declines to award attorneys’ fees to Wesley Jessen.”
Sony Elec., Inc. v. Soundview Tech., Inc., 359 F. Supp. 2d 173 (D. Conn. 2005). “Although Sony's Twelfth Counterclaim raises an "Exceptional Case” claim, the non-Soundview parties are entitled to seek "exceptional case” attorneys fees as prevailing parties under 25 U.S.C. § 285 regardless of whether this is labeled as a separate counterclaim.”
Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 3:18-cv-01518 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2021). “UNDER 25 U.S.C. § 285 14 ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, an Indiana 15 (ECF No.”
Levitation Arts, Inc. v. Plox, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-01476, 2020 WL 2730905 (D. Del. May 26, 2020). “declining to award attorney’s fees under 25 U.S.C. § 285 . This Report and Recommendation is filed pursuant to 28 U.”
ImageSails, LLC v. North Sails Grp. LLC, No. 5:24-cv-07155 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2026). “DISCUSSION 4 North Sails’ Motion to Strike asks the Court to strike the Operative Contentions, dismiss 5 the complaint with prejudice and award attorneys’ fees under 25 U.S.C. § 285 . See Dkts. 63, 81. 6 The Court first addresses the merits (i.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.