We will hear argument this morning in case 23-900, Dewberry Group v. Doobury Engineers.

Mr. Hungar?

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court.

The Lanham Act authorizes disgorgement of the defendant's profits.

Petitioner is the only defendant in this case, but it had no profits to disgorge.

So the courts below ordered Petitioner to disgorge the profits of its

legally distinct affiliates to the tune of $43 million. Nothing in the Lanham Act

authorizes that blatant disregard of corporate separateness. Under the Act's plain language, a

defendant's profits do not include the profits of separate corporations. A respondent asserted a, quote, collective economic

enterprise, close quote, theory, persuading the courts below to treat petitioner and its

affiliates as a single corporate entity so as to attribute the affiliates' profits to petitioner.

That's classic disregard of the corporate form, yet both respondent and the courts below

disavowed any claim of veil-piercing.

Instead, the Fourth Circuit relied on its notion of equity to justify the single corporate

entity approach. But that assertion of unbounded equitable authority violates the maxim that equity

follows the law, including the best foods presumption of corporate separateness.

It also contradicts the equitable principles that disgorgement is limited to the defendant's

profits, not those of affiliates, and does not allow penalties like the award here.

For precisely those same reasons, respondent fails in its attempt to justify the award

by distorting the just-sum provision.

Starbucks held that the word just in a remedial statute incorporates traditional equitable limits.

So rejection of the Fourth Circuit's rationale, as contrary to equitable principles and the best

...