Octane Fitness v. Icon Health and Fitness
| 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.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Opinion recap: Justices want Federal Circuit out of loop on fee disputes in patent cases (Ronald Mann, April 29, 2014)
- Argument recap: Justices hard to read in twin disputes about attorneys fees in patent litigation (Ronald Mann, February 28, 2014)
- Argument preview: Justices to assess attorneys fees in patent litigation (twice in one day!) (Ronald Mann, February 24, 2014)
- Petition of the day (Mary Pat Dwyer, September 6, 2013)
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
|---|---|
| 03/27/2013 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 29, 2013) |
| 04/19/2013 | Order extending time to file response to petition to and including May 29, 2013. |
| 05/29/2013 | Brief of respondent ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. in opposition filed. |
| 06/04/2013 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 20, 2013. |
| 06/06/2013 | Reply of petitioner Octane Fitness, LLC filed. (Distributed) |
| 06/26/2013 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 30, 2013. |
| 10/01/2013 | Petition GRANTED. |
| 10/31/2013 | 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. |
| 11/06/2013 | The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including December 2, 2013. |
| 11/06/2013 | The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including January 17, 2014. |
| 11/25/2013 | SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, February 26, 2014 |
| 12/02/2013 | Brief of petitioner Octane Fitness, LLC filed. |
| 12/02/2013 | Motion to file the joint appendix under seal with redacted copies for the public record filed by petitioner Octane Fitness, LLC. |
| 12/02/2013 | Joint appendix filed. (Redacted copy) |
| 12/04/2013 | Record received from U.S.C.A. Federal Circuit. (1 Box) |
| 12/06/2013 | Brief amici curiae of Robin Feldman, and U.C. Hastings Institute for Innovation Law in support of either party filed. |
| 12/09/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of BSA - The Software Alliance filed. |
| 12/09/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association in support of neither party filed. |
| 12/09/2013 | Brief amici curiae of Google Inc., et al. filed. VIDED (see 12-1163). |
| 12/09/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Apple Inc. in support of neither party filed. VIDED (see 12-1163). |
| 12/09/2013 | Brief amici curiae of Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al. filed. |
| 12/09/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Food Marketing Institute filed. |
| 12/09/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Intellectual Property Owners Association filed. |
| 12/09/2013 | Brief amici curiae of Computer & Communications Industry Association, et al. filed. |
| 12/09/2013 | Brief amici curiae of Vermont, et al. filed. |
| 12/09/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago in support of neither party filed. |
| 12/09/2013 | Brief amici curiae of Yahoo! Inc., et al. filed. VIDED. |
| 12/09/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. |
| 12/09/2013 | Brief amici curiae of 3M Co., et al filed. |
| 12/09/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of New York Intellectual Property Law Association in support of neither party filed. |
| 12/11/2013 | Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 10, 2014. |
| 12/12/2013 | 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). |
| 12/23/2013 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed. |
| 01/13/2014 | Motion to file the joint appendix under seal with redacted copies for the public record GRANTED. |
| 01/17/2014 | CIRCULATED. |
| 01/17/2014 | Brief of respondent ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. filed. (Distributed) |
| 01/27/2014 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED. |
| 02/18/2014 | Reply of petitioner Octane Fitness, LLC filed. (Distributed) |
| 02/26/2014 | 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. |
| 04/29/2014 | 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. |
| 06/02/2014 | JUDGMENT ISSUED. |
| 06/03/2014 | Record returned for U.S.D.C. District of Minnesota. |
| 06/03/2014 | Record returned for U.S.C.A. Federal Circuit. |
Issue: Whether 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 appropriates a district court”s discretionary authority to award attorney fees to prevailing accused infringers in contravention of statutory intent and this Court”s precedent, 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.