31:
291:, for patent infringement. Octane Fitness, arguing that their elliptical products did not infringe ICON's patent, won on summary judgment and later moved for reimbursement for their attorney's fees. The district court denied the motion for attorney's fees, stating that even though Octane Fitness eventually prevailed, ICON's claims were not objectively baseless, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision.
264:). The Supreme Court essentially made it easier for courts to make the loser pay for all attorney costs if the lawsuit is regarded as frivolous. In other words, "the Supreme Court's decision grants judges more leeway to crack down on baseless claims."
271:, which "will have to add a new variable to their calculations before pursuing a marginal lawsuit over their intellectual property: the other side's legal fees." The decision was unanimous, with the opinion written by Justice
515:
365:
342:
316:
79:
415:
505:
510:
520:
257:
35:
386:
135:
451:
487:
309:
301:
241:
Sotomayor, joined by
Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Kagan; Scalia (except footnotes 1–3)
146:
369:
346:
74:
525:
460:
200:
288:
253:
116:
283:
In the underlying litigation, ICON Health & Fitness, the manufacturer of such brands as
469:
272:
216:
192:
188:
372:
349:
204:
180:
63:
499:
268:
212:
172:
387:"Supreme Court decision makes it easier to stick patent trolls with court costs"
284:
224:
143:
287:
and ProForm, sued Octane
Fitness, a relatively small and specialized maker of
154:
94:
90:
416:"Patent Trolls Face Higher Risks As Supreme Court Loosens Fee-Shifting Rule"
150:
86:
478:
106:
139:
54:
Octane
Fitness, LLC, Petitioner v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.
30:
256:
decisions issued on April 29, 2014 regarding patent lawsuit
267:
The decision is particularly relevant for the so-called
516:
United States
Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court
445:
Octane
Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.
339:
Octane
Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.
249:
Octane
Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.
132:
Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Octane
Fitness, LLC
24:
Octane
Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.
317:
List of United States
Supreme Court cases, volume 572
305:(1994): awarding attorney's fees in a copyright case
237:
232:
161:
127:
122:
112:
102:
69:
59:
49:
42:
23:
313:(2019): awarding attorney's fees in a patent case
362:Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc.
8:
334:
332:
20:
447:, 572 U.S. 545 (2014) is available from:
409:
407:
488:Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)
328:
252:, 572 U.S. 545 (2014), is one of two
18:2014 United States Supreme Court case
7:
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
506:United States Supreme Court cases
414:Fisher, Daniel (April 29, 2014).
385:Robertson, Adi (April 29, 2014).
29:
511:2014 in United States case law
142:Sept. 6, 2011); affirmed, 496
1:
521:United States patent case law
157:granted, 134 S.Ct. 49 (2013)
93:3107; 82 U.S.L.W. 4330; 110
542:
479:Oyez (oral argument audio)
262:Highmark v. Allcare Health
166:
28:
310:Peter v. NantKwest, Inc.
302:Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.
43:Argued February 26, 2014
260:(the other case being
45:Decided April 29, 2014
85:134 S. Ct. 1749; 188
117:Opinion announcement
113:Opinion announcement
289:elliptical trainers
201:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
138:, 2011 WL 3900975 (
254:U.S. Supreme Court
177:Associate Justices
245:
244:
136:No. 0:09-cv-00319
533:
492:
486:
483:
477:
474:
468:
465:
459:
456:
450:
431:
430:
428:
426:
411:
402:
401:
399:
397:
382:
376:
359:
353:
336:
162:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
541:
540:
536:
535:
534:
532:
531:
530:
496:
495:
490:
484:
481:
475:
472:
466:
463:
457:
454:
448:
440:
435:
434:
424:
422:
413:
412:
405:
395:
393:
384:
383:
379:
360:
356:
337:
330:
325:
297:
281:
273:Sonia Sotomayor
217:Sonia Sotomayor
215:
203:
193:Clarence Thomas
191:
189:Anthony Kennedy
98:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
539:
537:
529:
528:
523:
518:
513:
508:
498:
497:
494:
493:
461:Google Scholar
439:
438:External links
436:
433:
432:
403:
377:
354:
327:
326:
324:
321:
320:
319:
314:
306:
296:
293:
280:
277:
243:
242:
239:
235:
234:
230:
229:
228:
227:
205:Stephen Breyer
181:Antonin Scalia
178:
175:
170:
164:
163:
159:
158:
129:
125:
124:
120:
119:
114:
110:
109:
104:
100:
99:
84:
71:
67:
66:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
538:
527:
524:
522:
519:
517:
514:
512:
509:
507:
504:
503:
501:
489:
480:
471:
462:
453:
452:CourtListener
446:
442:
441:
437:
421:
417:
410:
408:
404:
392:
388:
381:
378:
374:
371:
367:
363:
358:
355:
351:
348:
344:
340:
335:
333:
329:
322:
318:
315:
312:
311:
307:
304:
303:
299:
298:
294:
292:
290:
286:
278:
276:
274:
270:
269:patent trolls
265:
263:
259:
255:
251:
250:
240:
236:
231:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
179:
176:
174:
171:
169:Chief Justice
168:
167:
165:
160:
156:
152:
148:
145:
141:
137:
133:
130:
126:
121:
118:
115:
111:
108:
107:Oral argument
105:
101:
96:
92:
88:
82:
81:
76:
72:
68:
65:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
444:
423:. Retrieved
419:
394:. Retrieved
390:
380:
375: (2014).
361:
357:
352: (2014).
338:
308:
300:
282:
266:
261:
258:fee-shifting
248:
247:
246:
233:Case opinion
220:
213:Samuel Alito
208:
196:
184:
173:John Roberts
131:
123:Case history
78:
53:
15:
526:Legal costs
285:NordicTrack
225:Elena Kagan
500:Categories
323:References
279:Background
95:U.S.P.Q.2d
91:U.S. LEXIS
89:816; 2014
60:Docket no.
391:The Verge
151:Fed. Cir.
87:L. Ed. 2d
70:Citations
443:Text of
295:See also
238:Majority
144:F. App'x
140:D. Minn.
103:Argument
153:2012);
64:12-1184
491:
485:
482:
476:
473:
470:Justia
467:
464:
458:
455:
449:
425:May 4,
420:Forbes
396:May 4,
364:,
341:,
223:
221:·
219:
211:
209:·
207:
199:
197:·
195:
187:
185:·
183:
368:
345:
155:cert.
128:Prior
77:545 (
427:2014
398:2014
370:U.S.
347:U.S.
97:1337
80:more
75:U.S.
73:572
373:559
366:572
350:545
343:572
502::
418:.
406:^
389:.
331:^
275:.
147:57
134:,
429:.
400:.
149:(
83:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.