CAFC contemplates meaning of "prevailing party" in BE Technology vs. Facebook

Of note, within the case:


The [Supreme] Court disagreed, holding that a merits decision is
not a prerequisite to a finding of prevailing party status.
The Court explained that “[c]ommon sense undermines the
notion that a defendant cannot ‘prevail’ unless the relevant
disposition is on the merits.” Id. Instead, it held that a
“defendant has . . . fulfilled its primary objective whenever
the plaintiff’s challenge is rebuffed, irrespective of the precise
reason for the court’s decision,” and that a “defendant
may prevail even if the court’s final judgment rejects the
plaintiff’s claim for a nonmerits reason.” Id.
In so holding, the Court noted that one purpose of the
fee-shifting provision is to deter the bringing of lawsuits
without foundation.




Facebook wins.

Key text
CRST, 136 S. Ct. 1642,
1651