Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
118 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1770
| SCOTUS | 2016Background
- Kirtsaeng previously won a ruling on the first-sale doctrine on foreign-made books under 17 U.S.C. §109(a).
- Kirtsaeng then sought over $2 million in attorney’s fees under §505; District Court denied the fee request.
- Second Circuit affirmed, applying substantial weight to the reasonableness of Wiley’s position and minimal effect from other factors.
- Court of Appeals’ framework suggested reasonableness might carry presumptive force against fee shifting, prompting review.
- Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded to reconsider the fee award with guidance to weigh reasonableness and other factors.
- Ultimately, plurality held that district courts must give substantial weight to objective reasonableness but consider all relevant factors; remand to re-evaluate consistent with this approach.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reasonableness of losing party’s position governs fee-shifting discretion | Kirtsaeng says focus on close issues should predominate | Wiley argues substantial weight to objective reasonableness best advances Act goals | Yes; substantial weight to reasonableness, but not controlling |
| Whether other factors can override reasonableness in §505 awards | Kirtsaeng seeks broader consideration of public-issue impact | Wiley contends reasonableness dominates; other factors secondary | No; district courts must weigh all relevant factors, not just reasonableness |
| Disposition on remand | Kirtsaeng requests reconsideration under clarified standard | Wiley supports remand with proper guiding principles | Remand to reassess fee with substantial weight to reasonableness and other factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U. S. 517 (U.S. 1994) (established discretionary limits and nonexclusive factors for §505)
- Flight Attendants v. Zipes, 491 U. S. 754 (U.S. 1989) (limits on discretion tied to large objectives of the statute)
- Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U. S. 132 (U.S. 2005) (noting discretion must be guided by sound legal principles)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U. S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (reasonableness and compensation considerations in fee-shifting)
- Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S. A., 562 U. S. 40 (U.S. 2010) (per curiam addressing fee-shifting standards)