{"id":7076,"date":"2015-01-12T11:54:14","date_gmt":"2015-01-12T17:54:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=7076"},"modified":"2015-01-24T13:19:55","modified_gmt":"2015-01-24T19:19:55","slug":"superfluous","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=7076","title":{"rendered":"Superfluous"},"content":{"rendered":"

Interesting quote from Octane Fitness v. Icon Health & Fitness<\/span>, 134 S. Ct. 1749, 1758 (2014):<\/p>\n

We reject <\/span>Brooks Furniture<\/em> for another reason: It is so demanding that it would appear to render \u00a7 285 largely superfluous. We have long recognized a common-law exception to the general “American rule” against fee-shifting \u2014 an exception, “inherent” in the “power [of] the courts” that applies for “`willful disobedience of a court order'” or “when the losing party has `acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons….'” <\/span>Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society,<\/em>421 U.S. 240, 258-259, 95 S.Ct. 1612, 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975)<\/a>. We have twice declined to construe fee-shifting provisions narrowly on the basis that doing so would render them superfluous, given the background exception to the American rule, see<\/span>Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC,<\/em> 434 U.S. 412, 419, 98 S.Ct. 694, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978)<\/a>; <\/span>Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc.,<\/em> 390 U.S. 400, 402, n. 4, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968) (per curiam<\/em>)<\/a>, and we again decline to do so here.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Something to keep in mind the next time you are considering whether Alice v. CLS Bank<\/span> renders 35 U.S.C. \u00a7103 largely superfluous for certain types of inventions.<\/p>\n

Perhaps\u00a0Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Service, Inc.<\/em>, 486 U.S. 825, 108 S. Ct. 2182, 100 L. Ed. 2d 836 (1988) is more on point:<\/span><\/p>\n

As our cases have noted in the past, we are hesitant to adopt an interpretation of a congressional enactment which renders <\/span>superfluous<\/span> another portion of that same law.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Id<\/em>. (citing <\/span> <\/em>Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co.<\/em> v.\u00a0Russell,<\/em> 473 U. S. 134, 142 (1985)<\/a>; <\/span>FEC<\/em> v.National Conservative Political Action Committee,<\/em> 470 U. S. 480, 486 (1985)<\/a>; <\/span>Park ‘N Fly, Inc.<\/em> v.\u00a0Dollar Park and Fly, Inc.,<\/em> 469 U. S. 189, 197 (1985)<\/a>; <\/span>United States<\/em> v.\u00a0Generix Drug Corp.,<\/em> 460 U. S. 453, 458-459 (1983)<\/a>; <\/span>Dickerson<\/em> v.\u00a0New Banner Institute,<\/em> 460 U. S. 103, 118 (1983)<\/a>).<\/span><\/p>\n


\n<\/span><\/p>\n