Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.
United States Supreme Court
572 U.S. 545 (2014)
- Written by Eric Cervone, LLM
Facts
ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. (ICON) (plaintiff) and Octane Fitness, LLC (Octane) (defendant) were both manufacturers of exercise equipment. ICON brought suit against Octane, alleging that Octane manufactured exercise machines that violated ICON’s patents. The trial court granted Octane’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Octane’s machines did not infringe ICON’s patent. Octane then moved for attorney’s fees under § 285 of the Patent Act. The trial court denied Octane’s motion. The court determined that Octane could show neither that ICON’s claim was objectively baseless, nor that ICON had brought it in subjective bad faith. The court also found no subjective bad faith on ICON’s part. ICON appealed the judgment of noninfringement, and Octane cross-appealed the denial of attorney’s fees. The Federal Circuit affirmed both orders. In upholding the denial of attorney’s fees, the Federal Circuit rejected Octane’s argument that the trial court had applied an overly restrictive standard in refusing to find the case exceptional under § 285. The Federal Circuit declined to revisit the standard for exceptionality. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sotomayor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
