The CAFC analyzed "prevailing party" in Pragmatus v. Newegg :To the extent the district court interprets our precedentsto require a prevailing party to have won a disputeor benefitted from a substantive court decision, the districtcourt is incorrect. Such a requirement goes beyondthe Supreme Court’s statements in Buckhannon, whichrequire only that the party has obtained a “judgment onthe merits,” 532 U.S. at 603, resulting in “a correspondingalteration in the legal relationship of the parties,” id. at605.“The dismissal of a claim with prejudice . . . is a judgmenton the merits under the law of the Federal Circuit.”Power Mosfet, 378 F.3d at 1416. At least where such adismissal is paired with a covenant not to sue, this courthas held that the dismissed party must be regarded as theprevailing party. See Highway Equip. Co. v. FECO, Ltd.,469 F.3d 1027, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A]s a matter ofpatent law, the dismissal with…
↧