Provided by:

Overhauser Law Offices

LLC
www.iniplaw.org
www.overhauser.com

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Cit e a s: 579 U. S. ____ (2016)

Opin ion of t h e Cou r t

NOTICE : Th is opin ion is su bject t o for m a l r evision befor e pu blica t ion in t h e
pr elim in a r y pr in t of t he Un it ed St a t es Repor t s. Rea der s a r e r equ est ed t o
n ot ify t he Repor t er of Decision s, Su pr em e Cou r t of t h e Un it ed St a t es, Wa sh in gt on , D. C. 20543, of a n y t ypogr a ph ica l or ot h er for m a l er r or s, in or der
t h a t cor r ect ion s m a y be m a de befor e t h e pr elim in a r y pr in t goes t o pr ess.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 15375
_________________

SUP AP KIRTSAE NG, DBA BLUE CH RISTINE 99,

P E TITIONE R v. J OH N WILE Y & SONS, INC.
ON WRIT OF CE RTIORARI TO TH E UNITE D STATE S COURT OF
AP P E ALS F OR TH E SE COND CIRCUIT
[J u n e 16, 2016]

J USTICE K AGAN deliver ed t h e opin ion of t h e Cou r t .

Sect ion 505 of t h e Copyr igh t Act pr ovides t h a t a dist r ict
cou r t m a y . . . a wa r d a r ea son a ble a t t or n eys fee t o t h e
pr eva ilin g pa r t y. 17 U. S. C. 505. Th e qu est ion pr esen t ed h er e is wh et h er a cou r t , in exer cisin g t h a t a u t h or it y, sh ou ld give su bst a n t ia l weigh t t o t h e object ive r ea son a blen ess of t h e losin g pa r tys position . Th e a n swer, a s bot h
decision s below h eld, is yest h e cou r t sh ou ld. Bu t t h e
cou r t m u st a lso give du e con sider a t ion t o a ll ot h er cir cu m st a n ces r eleva n t t o gr a n t in g fees; a n d it r et a in s discr et ion ,
in ligh t of t h ose fa ct or s, t o m a ke a n a wa r d even wh en t h e
losin g pa r t y a dva n ced a r ea son a ble cla im or defen se.
Beca u se we a r e n ot cer t a in t h a t t h e lower cou r t s h er e
u n der st ood t h e fu ll scope of t h a t discr et ion , we r et u r n t h e
ca se for fu r t h er con sider a t ion of t h e pr eva ilin g pa r t ys fee
a pplica t ion .
I
P et it ion er Su pa p Kir t sa en g, a cit izen of Th a ila n d, ca m e
t o t h e Un it ed St a t es 20 yea r s a go t o st u dy m a t h a t Cor n ell
Un iver sit y. H e qu ickly figu r ed ou t t h a t r espon den t J oh n
Wiley & Son s, a n a ca dem ic pu blish in g com pa n y, sold

KIRTSAE NG v. J OH N WILE Y & SONS, INC.

Opin ion of t h e Cou r t

vir t u a lly iden t ica l E n glish -la n gu a ge t ext books in t h e t wo

cou n t r iesbu t for fa r less in Th a ila n d t h a n in t h e Un it ed
St a t es. Seein g a r ipe oppor t u n it y for a r bit r a ge, Kir t sa en g
a sked fa m ily a n d fr ien ds t o bu y t h e for eign edit ion s in
Th a i bookst or es a n d sh ip t h em t o h im in New Yor k. H e
t h en r esold t h e t ext books t o Am er ica n st u den t s, r eim bu r sed h is Th a i su pplier s, a n d pocket ed a t idy pr ofit .
Wiley su ed Kir t sa en g for copyr igh t in fr in gem en t , cla im in g t h a t h is a ct ivit ies viola t ed it s exclu sive r igh t t o dist r ibu t e t h e t ext books. See 17 U. S. C. 106(3), 602(a )(1).
Kir t sa en g in voked t h e fir st -sa le doct r in e a s a defen se.
Th a t doct r in e t ypica lly en a bles t h e la wfu l own er of a book
(or ot h er wor k) t o r esell or ot h er wise dispose of it a s h e
wish es. See 109(a ). Bu t Wiley con t en ded t h a t t h e fir st sa le doct r in e did n ot a pply wh en a book (like t h ose
Kir t sa en g sold) wa s m a n u fa ct u r ed a br oa d.
At t h e t im e, cou r t s wer e in con flict on t h a t issu e. Som e
t h ou gh t , a s Kir t sa en g did, t h a t t h e fir st -sa le doct r in e
per m it t ed t h e r esa le of for eign -m a de books; ot h er s m a in t a in ed, a lon g wit h Wiley, t h a t it did n ot . An d t h is Cou r t ,
in it s fir st pa ss a t t h e issu e, divided 4 t o 4. See Costco
Wh olesa le Cor p. v. Om ega , S . A., 562 U. S. 40 (2010) ( per
cu r ia m ). In t h is ca se, t h e Dist r ict Cou r t sided wit h Wiley;
so t oo did a divided pa n el of t h e Cou r t of Appea ls for t h e
Secon d Cir cu it . See 654 F . 3d 210, 214, 222 (2011). To
set t le t h e con t in u in g con flict , t h is Cou r t gr a n t ed
Kir t sa en gs pet it ion for cer t ior a r i a n d r ever sed t h e Secon d
Cir cu it in a 6-t o-3 decision , t h u s est a blish in g t h a t t h e
fir st -sa le doct r in e a llows t h e r esa le of for eign -m a de books,
ju st a s it does dom est ic on es. See Kir tsa en g v. J oh n Wiley
& S on s, In c., 568 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., a t 3).
Ret u r n in g vict or iou s t o t h e Dist r ict Cou r t , Kir t sa en g
in voked 505 t o seek m or e t h a n $2 m illion in a t t or n eys
fees fr om Wiley. Th e cou r t den ied h is m ot ion . Relyin g on
Secon d Cir cu it pr eceden t , t h e cou r t ga ve su bst a n t ia l
weigh t t o t h e object ive r ea son a blen ess of Wileys in -

Cit e a s: 579 U. S. ____ (2016)

Opin ion of t h e Cou r t

fr in gem en t cla im . See No. 08cv07834 (SDNY, Dec. 20,

2013), App. t o P et . for Cer t . 18a , 2013 WL 6722887, *4. In
expla n a t ion of t h a t a ppr oa ch , t h e cou r t st a t ed t h a t t h e
im posit ion of a fee a wa r d a ga in st a copyr igh t h older wit h
a n object ively r ea son a blea lt h ou gh u n su ccessfu llit iga t ion posit ion will gen er a lly n ot pr om ot e t h e pu r poses of
t h e Copyr igh t Act . Id ., a t 11a (qu ot in g Ma tth ew Ben d er
& Co. v. West P u blish in g Co., 240 F . 3d 116, 122 (CA2
2001) (em ph a sis delet ed)). H er e, Wileys posit ion wa s
r ea son a ble: Aft er a ll, sever a l Cou r t s of Appea ls a n d t h r ee
J u st ices of t h e Su pr em e Cou r t h a d a gr eed wit h it . See
App. t o P et . for Cer t . 12a . An d a ccor din g t o t h e Dist r ict
Cou r t , n o ot h er cir cu m st a n ce over r [o]de t h a t object ive
r ea son a blen ess, so a s t o wa r r a n t fee-sh ift in g. Id ., a t 22a .
Th e Cou r t of Appea ls a ffir m ed, con clu din g in a br ief su m m a r y or der t h a t t h e dist r ict cou r t pr oper ly pla ced su bst a n t ia l weigh t on t h e r ea son a blen ess of [Wileys] posit ion a n d com m it t ed n o a bu se of discr et ion in decidin g
t h a t ot h er fa ct or s did n ot ou t weigh t h e r ea son a blen ess
fin din g. 605 F ed. Appx. 48, 49, 50 (CA2 2015).
We gr a n t ed cer t ior a r i, 577 U. S. ___ (2016), t o r esolve
disa gr eem en t in t h e lower cou r t s a bou t h ow t o a ddr ess a n
a pplica t ion for a t t or n eys fees in a copyr igh t ca se.1
II
Sect ion 505 st a t es t h a t a dist r ict cou r t m a y . . . a wa r d a
r ea son a ble a t t or n eys fee t o t h e pr eva ilin g pa r t y. It t h u s
a u t h or izes fee-sh ift in g, bu t wit h ou t specifyin g st a n da r ds
t h a t cou r t s sh ou ld a dopt , or gu idepost s t h ey sh ou ld u se, in

1 Com pa r e, e.g., Ma tth ew Ben d er & Co. v. West P u blish in g Co., 240
F . 3d 116, 122 (CA2 2001) (givin g su bst a n t ia l weigh t t o object ive
r ea son a blen ess), wit h , e.g., Bon d v. Blu m , 317 F . 3d 385, 397398 (CA4
2003) (en dor sin g a t ot a lit y-of-t h e-cir cu m st a n ces a ppr oa ch , wit h ou t
a ccor din g specia l sign ifica n ce t o a n y fa ct or ), a n d wit h , e.g., H oga n
S ystem s, In c. v. Cyber sou r ce In tl, In c., 158 F . 3d 319, 325 (CA5 1998)
(pr esu m in g t h a t a pr eva ilin g pa r t y r eceives fees).

KIRTSAE NG v. J OH N WILE Y & SONS, INC.

Opin ion of t h e Cou r t

det er m in in g wh en su ch a wa r ds a r e a ppr opr ia t e.

In F oger ty v. F a n ta sy, In c., 510 U. S. 517 (1994), t h is
Cou r t r ecogn ized t h e br oa d leewa y 505 gives t o dist r ict
cou r t sbu t a lso est a blish ed sever a l pr in ciples a n d cr it er ia
t o gu ide t h eir decision s. See id ., a t 519 (a skin g wh a t
st a n da r ds sh ou ld in for m t h e exer cise of t h e t r ia l cou r t s
a u t h or it y). Th e st a t u t or y la n gu a ge, we st a t ed, clea r ly
con n ot es discr et ion , a n d esch ews a n y pr ecise r u le or
for m u la for a wa r din g fees. Id ., a t 533, 534. St ill, we
est a blish ed a pa ir of r est r ict ion s. F ir st , a dist r ict cou r t
m a y n ot a wa r d[ ] a t t or n eys fees a s a m a t t er of cou r se;
r a t h er , a cou r t m u st m a ke a m or e pa r t icu la r ized, ca se-byca se a ssessm en t . Id ., a t 533. Secon d, a cou r t m a y n ot
t r ea t pr eva ilin g pla in t iffs a n d pr eva ilin g defen da n t s a n y
differ en t ly; defen da n t s sh ou ld be en cou r a ged t o lit iga t e
[m er it or iou s copyr igh t defen ses] t o t h e sa m e ext en t t h a t
pla in t iffs a r e en cou r a ged t o lit iga t e m er it or iou s cla im s of
in fr in gem en t . Id ., a t 527. In a ddit ion , we n ot ed wit h
a ppr ova l sever a l n on exclu sive fa ct or s t o in for m a cou r t s
fee-sh ift in g decision s: fr ivolou sn ess, m ot iva t ion , object ive
u n r ea son a blen ess[,] a n d t h e n eed in pa r t icu la r cir cu m st a n ces t o a dva n ce con sider a t ion s of com pen sa t ion a n d
det er r en ce. Id ., a t 534, n . 19. An d we left open t h e possibilit y of pr ovidin g fu r t h er gu ida n ce in t h e fu t u r e, in r espon se t o (a n d gr ou n ded on ) lower cou r t s evolvin g exper ien ce. See id ., a t 534535; Ma r tin v. F r a n klin Ca pita l
Cor p., 546 U. S. 132, 140, n . (2005) (n ot in g t h a t F oger ty
wa s n ot in t en ded t o be t h e en d of t h e m a t t er ).
Th e pa r t ies h er e, t h ou gh sh a r in g som e com m on gr ou n d,
n ow dispu t e wh a t else we sh ou ld sa y t o dist r ict cou r t s.
Bot h Kir t sa en g a n d Wiley a gr eea s t h ey m u st t h a t 505
gr a n t s cou r t s wide la t it u de t o a wa r d a t t or n eys fees ba sed
on t h e t ot a lit y of cir cu m st a n ces in a ca se. See Br ief for
P et it ion er 17; Br ief for Respon den t 35. Yet bot h r eject t h e
posit ion , t a ken by som e Cou r t s of Appea ls, see su pr a , a t 3,
n . 1, t h a t F oger ty spelled ou t t h e on ly a ppr opr ia t e lim it s

Cit e a s: 579 U. S. ____ (2016)

Opin ion of t h e Cou r t

on ju dicia l discr et ion in ot h er wor ds, t h a t ea ch dist r ict

cou r t sh ou ld ot h er wise pr oceed a s it sees fit , a ssign in g
wh a t ever weigh t t o wh a t ever fa ct or s it ch ooses. Ra t h er ,
Kir t sa en g a n d Wiley bot h ca ll, in a lm ost iden t ica l la n gu a ge, for [c]h a n n elin g dist r ict cou r t discr et ion t owa r ds
t h e pu r poses of t h e Copyr igh t Act . Br ief for P et it ion er 16;
see Br ief for Respon den t 21 ([A]n a ppella t e cou r t [sh ou ld]
ch a n n el a dist r ict cou r t s discr et ion so t h a t it . . . fu r t h er [s]
t h e goa ls of t h e Copyr igh t Act ). (An d in deed, a s discu ssed
la t er , bot h descr ibe t h ose pu r poses iden t ica lly. See in fr a ,
a t 6.) Bu t a t t h a t poin t , t h e t wo pa r t wa ys. Wiley a r gu es
t h a t givin g su bst a n t ia l weigh t t o t h e r ea son a blen ess of a
losin g pa r t ys posit ion will best ser ve t h e Act s object ives.
See Br ief for Respon den t 2435. By con t r a st , Kir t sa en g
fa vor s givin g specia l con sider a t ion t o wh et h er a la wsu it
r esolved a n im por t a n t a n d close lega l issu e a n d t h u s
m ea n in gfu lly cla r ifie[d] copyr igh t la w. Br ief for P et it ion er 36; see id ., a t 4144.
We join bot h pa r t ies in seein g a n eed for som e a ddit ion a l
gu ida n ce r espect in g t h e a pplica t ion of 505. In a ddr essin g
ot h er open -en ded fee-sh ift in g st a t u t es, t h is Cou r t h a s
em ph a sized t h a t in a syst em of la ws discr et ion is r a r ely
wit h ou t lim it s. F ligh t Atten d a n ts v. Zipes, 491 U. S. 754,
758 (1989); see H a lo E lectr on ics, In c. v. P u lse E lectr on ics,
In c., a n te, a t 8. Wit h ou t gover n in g st a n da r ds or pr in ciples, su ch pr ovision s t h r ea t en t o con don e ju dicia l wh im
or pr edilect ion . Ma r tin , 546 U. S., a t 139; see a lso ibid .
([A] m ot ion t o [a cou r t s] discr et ion is a m ot ion , n ot t o it s
in clin a t ion , bu t t o it s ju dgm en t ; a n d it s ju dgm en t is t o be
gu ided by sou n d lega l pr in ciples (qu ot in g Un ited S ta tes v.
Bu r r , 25 F . Ca s. 30, 35 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va . 1807) (Ma r sh a ll, C. J .))). At t h e lea st , u t t er ly fr eewh eelin g in qu ir ies
oft en depr ive lit iga n t s of t h e ba sic pr in ciple of ju st ice t h a t
like ca ses sh ou ld be decided a like, Ma r tin , 546 U. S., a t
139a s wh en , for exa m ple, on e ju dge t h in ks t h e pa r t ies
m ot iva t ion [s] det er m in a t ive a n d a n ot h er believes t h e

KIRTSAE NG v. J OH N WILE Y & SONS, INC.

Opin ion of t h e Cou r t

n eed for com pen sa t ion t r u m ps a ll else, F oger ty, 510

U. S., a t 534, n . 19. An d so t oo, su ch u n con st r a in ed discr et ion pr even t s in dividu a ls fr om pr edict in g h ow fee decision s will t u r n ou t , a n d t h u s fr om m a kin g pr oper ly in for m ed ju dgm en t s a bou t wh et h er t o lit iga t e. F or t h ose
r ea son s, wh en a pplyin g fee-sh ift in g la ws wit h n o explicit
lim it or con dit ion , H a lo, a n te, a t 8, we h a ve n on et h eless
fou n d lim it s in t h em a n d we h a ve don e so, ju st a s bot h
pa r t ies u r ge, by lookin g t o t h e la r ge object ives of t h e
r eleva n t Act , Zipes, 491 U. S., a t 759 (in t er n a l qu ot a t ion
m a r ks om it t ed); see su pr a , a t 5.
In a ccor d wit h su ch pr eceden t s, we m u st con sider if
eit h er Wileys or Kir t sa en gs pr oposa l well a dva n ces t h e
Copyr igh t Act s goa ls. Th ose object ives a r e well set t led.
As F oger ty expla in ed, copyr igh t la w u lt im a t ely ser ves t h e
pu r pose of en r ich in g t h e gen er a l pu blic t h r ou gh a ccess t o
cr ea t ive wor ks. 510 U. S., a t 527; see U. S. Con st ., Ar t . I,
8, cl. 8 (To pr om ot e t h e P r ogr ess of Scien ce a n d u sefu l
Ar t s). Th e st a t u t e a ch ieves t h a t en d by st r ikin g a ba la n ce bet ween t wo su bsidia r y a im s: en cou r a gin g a n d r ewa r din g a u t h or s cr ea t ion s wh ile a lso en a blin g ot h er s t o
bu ild on t h a t wor k. See F oger ty, 510 U. S., a t 526. Accor din gly, fee a wa r ds u n der 505 sh ou ld en cou r a ge t h e
t ypes of la wsu it s t h a t pr om ot e t h ose pu r poses. (Th a t is
wh y, for exa m ple, F oger ty in sist ed on t r ea t in g pr eva ilin g
pla in t iffs a n d pr eva ilin g defen da n t s a likebeca u se t h e
on e cou ld fu r t h er t h e policies of t h e Copyr igh t Act ever y
bit a s m u ch a s t h e ot h er . 510 U. S., a t 527.) On t h a t
m u ch , bot h pa r t ies a gr ee. Br ief for P et it ion er 37; Br ief for
Respon den t 2930. Th e con t est ed issu e is wh et h er givin g
su bst a n t ia l weigh t t o t h e object ive (u n )r ea son a blen ess of a
losin g pa r t ys lit iga t in g posit ion or , a lt er n a t ively, t o a
la wsu it s r ole in set t lin g sign ifica n t a n d u n cer t a in lega l
issu eswill pr edict a bly en cou r a ge su ch u sefu l copyr igh t
lit iga t ion .
Th e object ive-r ea son a blen ess a ppr oa ch t h a t Wiley fa vor s pa sses t h a t t est beca u se it bot h en cou r a ges pa r t ies

Cit e a s: 579 U. S. ____ (2016)

Opin ion of t h e Cou r t

wit h st r on g lega l posit ion s t o st a n d on t h eir r igh t s a n d

det er s t h ose wit h wea k on es fr om pr oceedin g wit h lit iga t ion . Wh en a lit iga n t wh et h er pla in t iff or defen da n t is
clea r ly cor r ect , t h e likelih ood t h a t h e will r ecover fees fr om
t h e opposin g (i.e., u n r ea son a ble) pa r t y gives h im a n in cen t ive t o lit iga t e t h e ca se a ll t h e wa y t o t h e en d. Th e h older
of a copyr igh t t h a t h a s obviou sly been in fr in ged h a s good
r ea son t o br in g a n d m a in t a in a su it even if t h e da m a ges a t
st a ke a r e sm a ll; a n d likewise, a per son defen din g a ga in st
a pa t en t ly m er it less copyr igh t cla im h a s ever y in cen t ive t o
keep figh t in g, n o m a t t er t h a t a t t or n eys fees in a pr ot r a ct ed su it m igh t be a s or m or e cost ly t h a n a set t lem en t .
Con ver sely, wh en a per son (a ga in , wh et h er pla in t iff or
defen da n t ) h a s a n u n r ea son a ble lit iga t in g posit ion , t h e
likelih ood t h a t h e will h a ve t o pa y t wo set s of fees discou r a ges lega l a ct ion . Th e copyr igh t h older wit h n o r ea son a ble
in fr in gem en t cla im h a s good r ea son n ot t o br in g su it in t h e
fir st in st a n ce (kn owin g h e ca n n ot for ce a set t lem en t a n d
will h a ve t o pr oceed t o ju dgm en t ); a n d t h e in fr in ger wit h
n o r ea son a ble defen se h a s ever y r ea son t o give in qu ickly,
befor e ea ch sides lit iga t ion cost s m ou n t . All of t h ose
r esu lt s pr om ot e t h e Copyr igh t Act s pu r poses, by en h a n cin g t h e pr oba bilit y t h a t bot h cr ea t or s a n d u ser s (i.e., pot en t ia l pla in t iffs a n d defen da n t s) will en joy t h e su bst a n t ive r igh t s t h e st a t u t e pr ovides.
By con t r a st , Kir t sa en gs pr oposa l wou ld n ot pr odu ce a n y
su r e ben efit s. We a ccept h is pr em ise t h a t lit iga t ion of
close ca ses ca n h elp en su r e t h a t t h e bou n da r ies of copyr igh t la w [a r e] dem a r ca t ed a s clea r ly a s possible, t h u s
a dva n cin g t h e pu blic in t er est in cr ea t ive wor k. Br ief for
P et it ion er 19 (qu ot in g F oger ty, 510 U. S., a t 527). Bu t we
ca n n ot a gr ee t h a t fee-sh ift in g will n ecessa r ily, or even
u su a lly, en cou r a ge pa r t ies t o lit iga t e t h ose ca ses t o ju dgm en t . F ee a wa r ds a r e a dou ble-edged swor d: Th ey in cr ea se t h e r ewa r d for a vict or ybu t a lso en h a n ce t h e
pen a lt y for a defea t . An d t h e h a llm a r k of h a r d ca ses is

KIRTSAE NG v. J OH N WILE Y & SONS, INC.

Opin ion of t h e Cou r t

t h a t n o pa r t y ca n be con fiden t if h e will win or lose. Th a t

m ea n s Kir t sa en gs a ppr oa ch cou ld ju st a s ea sily discou r a ge a s en cou r a ge pa r t ies t o pu r su e t h e kin ds of su it s t h a t
m ea n in gfu lly cla r if[y] copyr igh t la w. Br ief for P et it ion er
36. It wou ld (by defin it ion ) r a ise t h e st a kes of su ch su it s;
bu t wh et h er t h ose h igh er st a kes wou ld pr ovide a n in cen t iveor in st ea d a disin cen t ivet o lit iga t e h in ges on a
pa r t ys a t t it u de t owa r d r isk. Is t h e per son r isk-pr efer r in g
or r isk-a ver sea h igh -r oller or a pen n y-a n t e t ype? On ly
t h e for m er wou ld lit iga t e m or e in Kir t sa en gs wor ld. See
P osn er , An E con om ic Appr oa ch t o Lega l P r ocedu r e a n d
J u dicia l Adm in ist r a t ion , 2 J . Lega l St u dies 399, 428
(1973) (fees m a ke[ ] t h e expect ed va lu e of lit iga t ion less
for r isk-a ver se lit iga n t s, wh ich will en cou r a ge [t h em t o]
set t le[ ]). An d Kir t sa en g offer s n o r ea son t o t h in k t h a t
ser iou s ga m bler s pr edom in a t e. See, e.g., Texa s In d u str ies,
In c. v. Ra d cliff Ma ter ia ls, In c., 451 U. S. 630, 636, n . 8
(1981) (E con om ist s disa gr ee over wh et h er bu sin ess decision m a ker s[ ] a r e r isk a ver se); CIGNA Cor p. v. Am a r a ,
563 U. S. 421, 430 (2011) ([M]ost in dividu a ls a r e r isk
a ver se). So t h e va lu e of h is st a n da r d, u n like Wileys, is
en t ir ely specu la t ive.2
Wh a t is m or e, Wileys a ppr oa ch is m or e a dm in ist r a ble

2 Th is

ca se ser ves a s a good illu st r a t ion . Im a gin e you a r e Kir t sa en g

a t a key m om en t in h is ca sesa y, wh en decidin g wh eth er t o pet it ion
t h is Cou r t for cer t ior a r i. An d su ppose (a s Kir t sa en g n ow wish es) t h a t
t h e pr eva ilin g pa r t y in a h a r d a n d im por t a n t ca selike t h is on ewill
pr oba bly get a fee a wa r d. Does t h a t m a ke you m or e likely t o file,
beca u se you will r ecou p you r own fees if you win ? Or less likely t o file,
beca u se you will foot Wileys bills if you lose? H er e a r e som e a n swer s t o
ch oose fr om (r eca llin g t h a t you ca n n ot con fiden t ly pr edict wh ich wa y
t h e Cou r t will r u le): (A) Six of on e, h a lf a dozen of t h e ot h er . (B) Depen ds if Im feelin g lu cky t h a t da y. (C) Less likelyt h is is get t in g
sca r y; wh o kn ows h ow m u ch m on ey Wiley will spen d on Su pr em e Cou r t
la wyer s? (D) Mor e likelyt h e h igh er t h e st a kes, t h e gr ea t er t h e r u sh .
On ly if lot s of people a n swer (D) will Kir t sa en gs st a n da r d wor k in t h e
wa y a dver t ised. Ma ybe. But t h en a ga in , m a ybe n ot .

Cit e a s: 579 U. S. ____ (2016)

Opin ion of t h e Cou r t

t h a n Kir t sa en gs. A dist r ict cou r t t h a t h a s r u led on t h e

m er it s of a copyr igh t ca se ca n ea sily a ssess wh et h er t h e
losin g pa r t y a dva n ced a n u n r ea son a ble cla im or defen se.
Th a t is closely r ela t ed t o wh a t t h e cou r t h a s a lr ea dy don e:
In decidin g a n y ca se, a ju dge ca n n ot h elp bu t con sider t h e
st r en gt h a n d wea kn ess of ea ch sides a r gu m en t s. By
con t r a st , a ju dge m a y n ot kn ow a t t h e con clu sion of a su it
wh et h er a n ewly decided issu e will h a ve, a s Kir t sa en g
t h in ks cr it ica l, br oa d lega l sign ifica n ce. Th e pr eceden t set t in g, la w-cla r ifyin g va lu e of a decision m a y becom e
a ppa r en t on ly in r et r ospect som et im es, n ot u n t il m a n y
yea r s la t er . An d so t oo a decision s pr a ct ica l im pa ct (t o t h e
ext en t Kir t sa en g wou ld h a ve cou r t s sepa r a t ely con sider
t h a t fa ct or ). Dist r ict cou r t s a r e n ot a ccu st om ed t o eva lu a t in g in r ea l t im e eit h er t h e ju r ispr u den t ia l or t h e on -t h egr ou n d im por t of t h eir r u lin gs. E xa ct ly h ow t h ey wou ld do
so is u n cer t a in (Kir t sa en g poin t s t o n o ot h er con t ext in
wh ich cou r t s u n der t a ke su ch a n a n a lysis), bu t we fea r t h a t
t h e in qu ir y wou ld im plica t e ou r oft -st a t ed con cer n t h a t a n
a pplica t ion for a t t or n eys fees sh ou ld n ot r esu lt in a secon d m a jor lit iga t ion . Zipes, 491 U. S., a t 766 (qu ot in g
H en sley v. E cker h a r t, 461 U. S. 424, 437 (1983)). An d we
su spect t h a t even a t t h e en d of t h a t post -la wsu it la wsu it ,
t h e r esu lt s wou ld t ypica lly r eflect lit t le m or e t h a n edu ca t ed gu esses.
Con t r a r y t o Kir t sa en gs view, pla cin g su bst a n t ia l weigh t
on object ive r ea son a blen ess a lso t r ea t s pla in t iffs a n d
defen da n t s even -h a n dedly, a s F oger ty com m a n ds. No
m a t t er wh ich side win s a ca se, t h e cou r t m u st a ssess
wh et h er t h e ot h er sides posit ion wa s (u n )r ea son a ble. An d
of cou r se, bot h pla in t iffs a n d defen da n t s ca n (a n d som et im es do) m a ke u n r ea son a ble a r gu m en t s.
Kir t sa en g
cla im s t h a t t h e r ea son a blen ess in qu ir y syst em a t ica lly
fa vor s pla in t iffs beca u se a losin g defen da n t will vir t u a lly
a lwa ys be fou n d t o h a ve don e som et h in g cu lpa ble. Br ief
for P et it ion er 29 (em ph a sis in or igin a l). Bu t t h a t con fla t es

10

KIRTSAE NG v. J OH N WILE Y & SONS, INC.

Opin ion of t h e Cou r t

t wo differ en t qu est ion s: wh et h er a defen da n t in fa ct in fr in ged a copyr igh t a n d wh et h er h e m a de ser iou s a r gu m en t s in defen se of h is con du ct . Cou r t s ever y da y see
r ea son a ble defen ses t h a t u lt im a t ely fa il (ju st a s t h ey see
r ea son a ble cla im s t h a t com e t o n ot h in g); in t h is con t ext , a s
in a n y ot h er , t h ey a r e ca pa ble of dist in gu ish in g bet ween
t h ose defen ses (or cla im s) a n d t h e object ively u n r ea son a ble va r iet y. An d if som e cou r t con fu ses t h e issu e of lia bilit y wit h t h a t of r ea son a blen ess, it s fee a wa r d sh ou ld be
r ever sed for a bu se of discr et ion .3
All of t h a t sa id, object ive r ea son a blen ess ca n be on ly a n
im por t a n t fa ct or in a ssessin g fee a pplica t ion sn ot t h e
con t r ollin g on e. As we r ecogn ized in F oger ty, 505 con fer s br oa d discr et ion on dist r ict cou r t s a n d, in decidin g
wh et h er t o fee-sh ift , t h ey m u st t a ke in t o a ccou n t a r a n ge
of con sider a t ion s beyon d t h e r ea son a blen ess of lit iga t in g
posit ion s. See su pr a , a t 4. Th a t m ea n s in a n y given ca se
a cou r t m a y a wa r d fees even t h ou gh t h e losin g pa r t y
offer ed r ea son a ble a r gu m en t s (or , con ver sely, den y fees
even t h ou gh t h e losin g pa r t y m a de u n r ea son a ble on es).

3 Kir t sa en g

a lso offer s st a t ist ics m ea n t t o sh ow t h a t in pr a ct ice, even

if n ot in t h eor y, t h e object ive r ea son a blen ess in qu ir y u n du ly fa vor s
pla in t iffs; bu t t h e Solicit or Gen er a l a s a m icu s cu r ia e h a s ca st sign ifica n t dou bt on t h a t cla im . Accor din g t o Kir t sa en g, 86% of win n in g
copyr igh t h older s, bu t on ly 45% of pr eva ilin g defen da n t s, h a ve r eceived
fee a wa r ds over t h e la st 15 yea r s in t h e Secon d Cir cu it (wh ich , r eca ll,
gives su bst a n t ia l weigh t t o object ive r ea son a blen ess). See Reply Br ief
1718; su pr a , a t 23. Bu t fir st , t h e Solicit or Gen er a l r epr esen t s t h a t
t h e over a ll n u m ber s a r e a ct u a lly 77% a n d 53%, r espect ively. See Tr . of
Or a l Ar g. 41. An d secon d, t h e Solicit or Gen er a l poin t s ou t t h a t a ll
t h ese per cen t a ges in clu de defa u lt ju dgm en t s, wh ich a lm ost in va r ia bly
give r ise t o fee a wa r dsbu t u su a lly of a ver y sm a ll a m ou n t beca u se
t h e defen da n t h a s n ot sh own u p t o oppose eit h er t h e su it or t h e fee
a pplica t ion . Wh en t h ose ca ses a r e t a ken ou t , t h e st a t ist ics look fa ir ly
sim ila r : 60% for pla in t iffs ver su s 53% for defen da n t s. See id ., a t 42.
An d of cou r se, t h er e m a y be good r ea son s wh y copyr igh t pla in t iffs a n d
defen da n t s do n ot m a ke r ea son a ble a r gu m en t s in per fect ly equ a l
pr opor t ion .

Cit e a s: 579 U. S. ____ (2016)

11

Opin ion of t h e Cou r t

F or exa m ple, a cou r t m a y or der fee-sh ift in g beca u se of a

pa r t ys lit iga t ion m iscon du ct , wh a t ever t h e r ea son a blen ess
of h is cla im s or defen ses. See, e.g., Viva Vid eo, In c. v.
Ca br er a , 9 F ed. Appx. 77, 80 (CA2 2001). Or a cou r t m a y
do so t o det er r epea t ed in st a n ces of copyr igh t in fr in gem en t
or over a ggr essive a sser t ion s of copyr igh t cla im s, a ga in
even if t h e losin g posit ion wa s r ea son a ble in a pa r t icu la r
ca se. See, e.g., Br id gepor t Mu sic, In c. v. WB Mu sic Cor p.,
520 F . 3d 588, 593595 (CA6 2008) (a wa r din g fees a ga in st
a copyr igh t h older wh o filed h u n dr eds of su it s on a n over br oa d lega l t h eor y, in clu din g in a su bset of ca ses in wh ich
it wa s object ively r ea son a ble). Alt h ou gh object ive r ea son a blen ess ca r r ies sign ifica n t weigh t , cou r t s m u st view a ll
t h e cir cu m st a n ces of a ca se on t h eir own t er m s, in ligh t of
t h e Copyr igh t Act s essen t ia l goa ls.
An d on t h a t scor e, Kir t sa en g h a s r a ised ser iou s qu est ion s a bou t h ow fee-sh ift in g a ct u a lly oper a t es in t h e Secon d Cir cu it . To be su r e, t h e Cou r t of Appea ls fr a m in g of
t h e in qu ir y r esem bles ou r own : It ca lls for a dist r ict cou r t
t o give su bst a n t ia l weigh t t o t h e r ea son a blen ess of a
losin g pa r t ys lit iga t in g posit ion s wh ile a lso con sider in g
ot h er r eleva n t cir cu m st a n ces. See 605 F ed. Appx., a t 49
50; Ma tth ew Ben d er , 240 F . 3d, a t 122. Bu t t h e Cou r t of
Appea ls la n gu a ge a t t im es su ggest s t h a t a fin din g of
r ea son a blen ess r a ises a pr esu m pt ion a ga in st gr a n t in g
fees, see ibid .; su pr a , a t 23a n d t h a t goes t oo fa r in
ca bin in g h ow a dist r ict cou r t m u st st r u ct u r e it s a n a lysis
a n d wh a t it m a y con clu de fr om it s r eview of r eleva n t
fa ct or s. St ill m or e, dist r ict cou r t s in t h e Secon d Cir cu it
a ppea r t o h a ve over ly lea r n ed t h e Cou r t of Appea ls lesson ,
t u r n in g su bst a n t ia l in t o m or e n ea r ly disposit ive
weigh t . As Kir t sa en g n ot es, h a r dly a n y decision s in t h a t
Cir cu it h a ve gr a n t ed fees wh en t h e losin g pa r t y r a ised a
r ea son a ble a r gu m en t (a n d n on e h a ve den ied fees wh en t h e
losin g pa r t y fa iled t o do so). See Reply Br ief 15. F or t h ese
r ea son s, we va ca t e t h e decision below so t h a t t h e Dist r ict

12

KIRTSAE NG v. J OH N WILE Y & SONS, INC.

Opin ion of t h e Cou r t

Cou r t ca n t a ke a n ot h er look a t Kir t sa en gs fee a pplica t ion .

In sen din g ba ck t h e ca se for t h is pu r pose, we do n ot a t a ll
in t im a t e t h a t t h e Dist r ict Cou r t sh ou ld r ea ch a differ en t
con clu sion . Ra t h er , we m er ely en su r e t h a t t h e cou r t will
eva lu a t e t h e m ot ion con sist en t wit h t h e a n a lysis we h a ve
set ou t givin g su bst a n t ia l weigh t t o t h e r ea son a blen ess
of Wileys lit iga t in g posit ion , bu t a lso t a kin g in t o a ccou n t
a ll ot h er r eleva n t fa ct or s.
*

*
*
Th e ju dgm en t of t h e Cou r t of Appea ls is va ca t ed, a n d
t h e ca se is r em a n ded for fu r t h er pr oceedin gs con sist en t
wit h t h is opin ion .
It is so or d er ed .