Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. (572 U.S. 545)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided April 29, 2014 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 572 U.S. 545 · 134 S. Ct. 1749
- Decided
- April 29, 2014
- Term
- October Term 2013
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Sotomayor
- Issue area
- Attorneys
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2013 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321 , 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus OCTANE FITNESS, LLC v. ICON HEALTH & FITNESS, INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT No. 12–1184. Argued February 26, 2014—Decided April 29, 2014 The Patent Act’s fee-shifting provision authorizes district courts to award attorney’s fees to prevailing parties in “exceptional cases.” 35 U. S. C. §285 . In Brooks Furniture Mfg., Inc. v. Dutailier Int’l, Inc., 393 F. 3d 1378 , 1381, the Federal Circuit defined an “exceptional case” as one which either involves “material inappropriate conduct” or is both “objectively baseless” and “brought in subjective bad faith.” Brooks Furniture also requires that parties establish the “exception- al” nature of a case by “clear and convincing evidence.” Id., at 1382 . Respondent ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., sued petitioner Octane Fitness, LLC, for patent infringement. The District Court granted summary judgment to Octane. Octane then moved for attorney’s…
Excerpt of a 27,701-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.