Whether the dismissal of a case for mootness can satisfy the 'prevailing party' standard

QUESTION PRESENTED Numerous federal statutes and rules provide for an award of attorneys’ fees or costs to the “prevailing party.” The “touchstone” of the prevailing party inquiry is the “material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties” that is “marked by judicial imprimatur.” See CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC, 136 S. Ct. 1642, 1646 (2016) (quoting Texas State Teachers Ass’n v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 791-92 (1989) and Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 605 (2001)). This case concerns the question of whether the dismissal of a case for mootness can ever satisfy the “prevailing party” standard. In Rice Services Ltd. v. United States, 405 F.3d 1017, 1027 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found it “obvious” that “if the case was moot then the Dismissal Order had no effect on the parties’ legal relationship and did not confer upon Rice ‘prevailing party’ status.” Id. (citing N. Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971)). In this case, however, the Federal Circuit held that Respondent Facebook, Inc. was a “prevailing party” entitled to costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) because Petitioner B.E. Technology, L.L.C.’s complaint was dismissed for mootness. The court of appeals’ conclusion was based on its misunderstanding of this Court’s opinion in CRST and its formulation of a new prevailing party standard that ignores the “touchstone” reaffirmed in CRST. The question presented is: Following this Court’s decision in CRST, does the standard for determining whether a defendant is a “prevailing party” require the “material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties” marked by “judicial imprimatur,” or, as the Federal Circuit held, is any “rebuffing” of the plaintiff, with or without a material alteration of the legal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, sufficient? -ii