Octane Fitness v. Icon Health and Fitness

Case Details

Status: Decided
Docket No: 12-1184
U.S. Chamber Litigation Center Involvement: None
Solicitor General Involvement: None
Sub-Issue: Patents
Industry: All Industries

Related Information

Term: 2013 Term
Oral Argument Date: February 26, 2014
Vote: 9-0
Opinion: Sotomayor

Question(s) Presented

Does the Federal Circuit’s promulgation of a rigid and exclusive two-part test for determining whether a case is “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 improperly appropriate a district court’s discretionary authority to award attorney fees to prevailing accused infringers in contravention of statutory intent and this Court’s recedent, thereby raising the standard for accused infringers (but not patentees) to recoup fees and encouraging patent plaintiffs to bring spurious patent cases to cause competitive harm or coerce unwarranted settlements from defendants? 

Case Outcome

The Supreme Court said that the Federal Circuit—the specialized federal court that hears appeals from all patent-infringement suits throughout the country—had interpreted the “exceptional cases” standard too narrowly. The Federal Circuit’s narrow reading of Section 285 had improperly deprived federal district courts of appropriate breathing room to exercise their discretion in awarding attorney’s fees, the Court held.

Procedural History

Cert. Petition filed 3/27/13. Granted 10/1/13. Argued 2/26/2014. Decided 4/29/2014.

Case Documents