Samiksha Jaiswal (Editor)

Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health and Fitness, Inc.

Updated on
Edit
Like
Comment
Share on FacebookTweet on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Reddit
Docket nos.
  
12-1184

Argument
  
Oral argument

End date
  
April 29, 2014

Citations
  
572 U.S. ___ (more)

Opinion announcement
  
Opinion announcement

Location
  
United States of America

Full case name
  
Octane Fitness, LLC, Petitioner v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.

Majority
  
Sotomayor, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Kagan (in full); Scalia (all except footnotes 1-3)

Ruling court
  
Supreme Court of the United States

Similar
  
Alice Corp v CLS Bank Inte, Bilski v Kappos, KSR International Co v Tel, DDR Holdings v Hotelscom, McCullen v Coakley

Octane fitness llc v icon health scotus reviews cafc standard for awarding attorney s fees


Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. ___ (2014), is one of two U.S. Supreme Court decisions issued on April 29, 2014 regarding patent lawsuit fee-shifting (the other case being Highmark v. Allcare Health). 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." The decision is particularly relevant for the so-called patent trolls, 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 Sonia Sotomayor.

Contents

Background

In the underlying litigation ICON Health & Fitness, the world's largest maker of exercise equipment, sued Octane Fitness, a relatively small and specialized maker of elliptical trainers, 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.

References

Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. Wikipedia