|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-1184||Fed. Cir.||Feb 26, 2014||Apr 29, 2014||9-0||Sotomayor||OT 2013|
Holding: Section 285 of the Patent Act authorizes a district court to award attorney's fees in patent litigation in "exceptional cases" – that is, cases which stand out from the others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated. District courts should determine whether a case is exceptional “in the case-by-case exercise of their discretion, considering the totality of the circumstances.” The Federal Circuit’s Brooks Furniture Mfg. v. Dutailier framework, pursuant to which a case is “exceptional” only if the district court finds either litigation-related misconduct of an independently sanctionable magnitude or determines that the litigation was both “brought in subjective bad faith” and “objectively baseless,” superimposes an inflexible framework onto statutory text that is inherently flexible.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on April 29, 2014.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Mar 27 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 29, 2013)|
|Apr 19 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including May 29, 2013.|
|May 29 2013||Brief of respondent ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. in opposition filed.|
|Jun 4 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 20, 2013.|
|Jun 6 2013||Reply of petitioner Octane Fitness, LLC filed. (Distributed)|
|Jun 26 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 30, 2013.|
|Oct 1 2013||Petition GRANTED.|
|Oct 31 2013||Blanket consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent.|
|Nov 6 2013||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including December 2, 2013.|
|Nov 6 2013||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including January 17, 2014.|
|Nov 25 2013||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, February 26, 2014|
|Dec 2 2013||Brief of petitioner Octane Fitness, LLC filed.|
|Dec 2 2013||Motion to file the joint appendix under seal with redacted copies for the public record filed by petitioner Octane Fitness, LLC.|
|Dec 2 2013||Joint appendix filed. (Redacted copy)|
|Dec 4 2013||Record received from U.S.C.A. Federal Circuit. (1 Box)|
|Dec 6 2013||Brief amici curiae of Robin Feldman, and U.C. Hastings Institute for Innovation Law in support of either party filed.|
|Dec 9 2013||Brief amicus curiae of BSA - The Software Alliance filed.|
|Dec 9 2013||Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association in support of neither party filed.|
|Dec 9 2013||Brief amici curiae of Google Inc., et al. filed. VIDED (see 12-1163).|
|Dec 9 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Apple Inc. in support of neither party filed. VIDED (see 12-1163).|
|Dec 9 2013||Brief amici curiae of Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al. filed.|
|Dec 9 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Food Marketing Institute filed.|
|Dec 9 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Intellectual Property Owners Association filed.|
|Dec 9 2013||Brief amici curiae of Computer & Communications Industry Association, et al. filed.|
|Dec 9 2013||Brief amici curiae of Vermont, et al. filed.|
|Dec 9 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago in support of neither party filed.|
|Dec 9 2013||Brief amici curiae of Yahoo! Inc., et al. filed. VIDED.|
|Dec 9 2013||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Dec 9 2013||Brief amici curiae of 3M Co., et al filed.|
|Dec 9 2013||Brief amicus curiae of New York Intellectual Property Law Association in support of neither party filed.|
|Dec 11 2013||Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 10, 2014.|
|Dec 12 2013||Record received from U.S.D.C. District of Minnesota (1 Box) The record is SEALED. Record also received from U.S.D.C. District of Minnesota (1 Envelope).|
|Dec 23 2013||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Jan 13 2014||Motion to file the joint appendix under seal with redacted copies for the public record GRANTED.|
|Jan 17 2014||CIRCULATED.|
|Jan 17 2014||Brief of respondent ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 27 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Feb 18 2014||Reply of petitioner Octane Fitness, LLC filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 26 2014||Argued. For petitioner: Rudolph A. Telscher, Jr., St. Louis, Mo.; and Roman Martinez, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Carter G. Phillips, Washington, D. C.|
|Apr 29 2014||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan, JJ., joined, and in which Scalia, J., joined except as to footnotes 1-3.|
|Jun 2 2014||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Jun 3 2014||Record returned for U.S.D.C. District of Minnesota.|
|Jun 3 2014||Record returned for U.S.C.A. Federal Circuit.|
#SCOTUS does not take up 2nd question in the case, on whether to overrule its 2020 decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma. Full order is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012122zr_3f14.pdf https://twitter.com/AHoweBlogger/status/1484606315519516675
#SCOTUS grants one new case, sets it for argument in April: Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, on whether a state has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country.
More opinions coming on Monday.
#SCOTUS website indicates that the Court is expected to release more opinions on Monday morning at 10 am.
The next #SCOTUS grants? Kevin McCarthy v. Nancy Pelosi in a fight over congressional proxy voting; the First Amendment-based ministerial exception to employment law returns; nondelegation doctrine (!); and the constitutionality of the FTC's structure.
Revenge of the rescheduled cases: Congressional proxy voting, the ministerial exception, and more - SCOTUSblog
The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming con...
JUST IN: The Supreme Court, over dissents from the three liberal justices, rejects a request from Texas abortion clinics to immediately return the litigation over Texas' six-week abortion law to a federal district court.
The Supreme Court issues a single opinion today, ruling in an 8-1 vote that a criminal defendant's rights were violated under the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause when the government introduced a plea allocution from another proceeding. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-637_10n2.pdf
Today at SCOTUS: We expect one or more opinions in argued cases to be issued starting at 10 a.m. EST. At 9:45, we'll fire up our live blog, where we'll also chat about this week's arguments and last night's ruling on Trump records. Grab your ☕️ & join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, Jan. 20 - SCOTUSblog
On Thursday, January 20, we will be live blogging as the court releases opinions in one or more argued cases f...