Skip to content

Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management Systems, Inc.

Docket No. Op. BelowArgument Opinion Vote Author Term
12-1163 Fed. Cir. Feb 26, 2014 Apr 29, 2014 9-0 Sotomayor OT 2013

Holding: All aspects of a district court's exceptional-case determination under 35 U.S.C. ยง 285, which allows an award of attorney"s fees to the prevailing party in patent litigation in "exceptional cases," should be reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on April 29, 2014.

DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
01/31/2013Application (12A763) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from March 6, 2013 to April 5, 2013, submitted to The Chief Justice.
02/04/2013Application (12A763) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until April 5, 2013.
03/25/2013Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 24, 2013)
04/24/2013Brief amicus curiae of Blue Cross Blue Shield Association filed.
05/07/2013DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 23, 2013.
05/14/2013Response Requested . (Due June 13, 2013)
06/13/2013Brief of respondent Allcare Health Management Systems, Inc. in opposition filed.
06/25/2013Reply of petitioner Highmark Inc. filed.
06/26/2013DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 30, 2013.
10/01/2013Petition GRANTED.
11/07/2013The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including December 2, 2013.
11/07/2013The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including January 17, 2014.
11/08/2013Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.
11/25/2013SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, February 26, 2014
12/02/2013Joint appendix filed (2 volumes and supplemental volume). (Statement of costs received)
12/02/2013Brief of petitioner Highmark Inc. filed.
12/04/2013Record received from U.S.C.A. Federal Circuit. (1 Box)
12/09/2013Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association in support of neither party filed.
12/09/2013Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed.
12/09/2013Brief amici curiae of Google Inc., et al. filed. VIDED (see 12-1184).
12/09/2013Brief amicus curiae of Apple Inc. in support of neither party filed. VIDED (see 12-1184).
12/09/2013Brief amici curiae of Yahoo! Inc., et al filed. VIDED (see 12-1184).
12/09/2013Brief amicus curiae of Blue Cross Blue Shield Association filed.
12/09/2013Brief amicus curiae of New York Intellectual Property Law Association in support of neither party filed.
12/12/2013Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent. VIDED.
12/20/2013CIRCULATED.
12/23/2013Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
01/08/2014Record received from U.S.D.C. Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth). (7 Boxes), (2 CD's) All records in the 7 boxes are SEALED. The 2 CD's are electronic.
01/17/2014Brief of respondent Allcare Health Management System, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
01/24/2014Brief amicus curiae of BSA l The Software Alliance filed. (Distributed)
01/24/2014Brief amicus curiae of Intellectual Property Owners Association filed. (Distributed)
01/24/2014Brief amicus curiae of Boston Patent Law Association. filed. (Distributed)
01/27/2014Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
02/10/2014Reply of petitioner Highmark Inc. filed. (Distributed)
02/26/2014Argued. For petitioner: Neal K. Katyal, Washington, D. C.; and Brian H. Fletcher, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Donald R. Dunner, Washington, D. C.
04/29/2014Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
06/02/2014JUDGMENT ISSUED.
06/03/2014Record returned for U.S.C.A. Federal Circuit.
06/03/2014Record returned for U.S.D.C. Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth Division)

Issue: Whether a district court”s exceptional-case finding under 35 U.S.C. ยง 285 (which permits the court to award attorney”s fees in exceptional cases), based on its judgment that a suit is objectively baseless, is entitled to deference.