The US Supreme Court [official website] heard oral arguments [day call, PDF] Monday in two cases. In Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [transcript, PDF], the court must determine what constitutes the standard for awarding attorney’s fees under § 505 of the Copyright Act [text]. Under the act, the district court is permitted to use its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees to a prevailing party in a copyright action. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed [opinion, PDF] a finding that John Wiley’s course of action in challenging Kirtsaeng’s use of copyrighted material was objectively reasonable. Counsel for the petitioner argued, “[w]hen a defendant is trying to decide whether to fight for a principle, the availability of attorneys’ fees can make all the difference in that decision, and in turn can make all the difference in whether the public’s rights are vindicated.”

In Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee [transcript, PDF], the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined [opinion, PDF] it lacks jurisdiction to review the US Patent and Trademark Office‘s (PTO) implementation of inter partes review, and the court affirmed the PTO’s order that Cuozzo’s trademark should remain unaltered. Global Positioning System (GPS) manufacturer Garmin [official website] requested the PTO review Cuozzo’s trademark on speed indicator technology, alleging that multiple parts were ambiguous. Cuozzo requested to revise those portions, but instead the PTO found that no changes should be made. The Supreme Court is now asked by Cuozzo to determine the court of appeals’ jurisdiction to review inter partes review decisions.