Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
EscapeX IP, LLC v. Google LLC
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2024-1201 · judgment November 25, 2025
Certiorari denied · April 27, 2026
Pre-decision estimate: 1% cert probability
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Question presented
- The Ninth Circuit has long held that sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 “must be supported by a finding of subjective bad faith,” and that bad faith may be inferred only when a filing is “so completely without merit as to require the conclusion that it must have been undertaken for some improper purpose such as delay.” In re Keegan Mgmt. Co. Sec. Litig., 78 F.3d 431, 436–37 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Blodgett, 709 F.2d 608, 610 (9th Cir. 1983). The Ninth Circuit has further held that an attorney’s reliance on new, client provided information not previously considered by the district court, even in support of a frivolous position, may be negligent but does not constitute sanctionable bad faith under § 1927. Caputo v. Tungsten Heavy Powder, Inc., 96 F.4th 1111, 1156–57 (9th Cir. 2024). The Federal Circuit has recognized that regional circuit law governs § 1927 in patent cases. United Cannabis Corp. v. Pure Hemp Collective Inc., 66 F.4th 1362, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Yet in this Ninth Circuit case it affirmed § 1927 sanctions without any express finding of subjective bad faith, applying instead an “objective” standard derived from its own precedent, Julien v. Zeringue, 864 F.2d 1572, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Whether, in a case arising from the Ninth Circuit, a federal court of appeals may affirm sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 based on an “objective” recklessness standard and without an express finding of subjective bad faith, notwithstanding Ninth Circuit precedent requiring such a finding.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
William Peterson Ramey III
Ramey LLP
For respondent
Jonathan Irvin Tietz
Perkins Coie LLP
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- Apr 27 2026Petition DENIED.
- Apr 08 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/24/2026.
- Apr 03 2026Waiver of right of respondent Google LLC to respond filed.
- Mar 03 2026Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 23, 2026)