Worlds Inc (WDDD)

[choo choo trader]

cadillacdave,

I have a slightly different take on whether WDDD could be awarded attorneys' fees if they are the prevailing party against Activision in court. You are right that the so-called "American Rule" controlling the assignment of attorneys' fees is the default legal rule in the United States. The American Rule requires both sides-the plaintiff and the defendant in a court case to pay their own legal fees, no matter who wins the case.

As to your mention of recent case law upholding that plaintiffs fund their own legal fees. I'm not sure about it, but you may be referring to the 2019 Supreme Court ruling which upheld the American Rule in some Federal Court cases. But that ruling was specific to a case and future cases where the plaintiff(a patent owner)was defending its patent which had been invalidated by the USPTO. The USPTO won the case and then tried to make the patent owner pay the USPTO's legal expenses. That case would not be a precedent for Worlds Inc. v Activision.

There is a chance WDDD could recover attorneys' fees from Activision under Section 35 USCA-285. Below is a link to a patent case where a judge ordered the defendant(Samsung) to pay the plaintiff's attorneys' fees. See if you see any possible similarities between Worlds Inc. v Activision and the following case.
https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/exceptional-patent-case-ended-with-attorney-fee-awards-exceeding-damages.html