Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2016)

This article is about "Kirtsaeng II", the 2016 U.S. Supreme Court case regarding attorney's fees. For "Kirtsaeng I", the 2013 case regarding the first-sale doctrine that lead in to it, see Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided June 16, 2016
Full case name	Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Docket no.	15-375
Citations	579 U.S. ___ ( more )
Holding
When deciding whether to award attorney's fees under the Copyright Act's fee-shifting provision, a district court should give substantial weight to the objective reasonableness of the losing party's position, while still taking into account all other circumstances relevant to granting fees. There is no particular presumption against awarding fees.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy  · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 579 U.S. ___(2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that when deciding whether to award attorney's fees under the Copyright Act's fee-shifting provision, a district court should give substantial weight to the objective reasonableness of the losing party's position, while still taking into account all other circumstances relevant to granting fees. There is no particular presumption against awarding fees. ^{[1] [2]}

Background

In Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. , the Supreme Court held that Supap Kirtsaeng could invoke the Copyright Act's "first-sale doctrine" as a defense to the copyright infringement claim filed by textbook publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Having won his case, Kirtsaeng returned to the federal district court to seek more than $2 million in attorney's fees from Wiley under the Copyright Act's fee-shifting provision. The district court denied Kirtsaeng's application because, it reasoned, imposing a fee award against a losing party that had taken reasonable positions during litigation (as Wiley had done) would not serve the Act's purposes. Affirming, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court was correct to place "substantial weight" on the reasonableness of Wiley's position and that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the other factors did not outweigh the reasonableness finding. ^[1]

Opinion of the court

The Supreme Court issued an opinion on June 16, 2016. ^[1]

References

1. Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ,No. 15-375 , 579 U.S. ___(2016).
2. Mann, Ronald (June 17, 2016). "Opinion analysis: Court clarifies availability of fee awards in copyright cases". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved August 8, 2025.

External links

• Text of Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ,No. 15-375, 579 U.S. ___(2016) is available from: Justia

This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain .