News & Analysis as of

Octane Fitness v. ICON

Octane Fitness Hits the Showers: Federal Circuit Affirms Attorneys’ Fees Award in Landmark Case

After an eight-year battle through the Federal Courts, the fight over attorneys’ fees in Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness has likely reached its end with the Federal Circuit upholding the hotly disputed $1.6 million...more

Federal Circuit Review - August 2017

by Knobbe Martens on

District Court Abused Discretion in Ignoring Federal Circuit Mandate to Reconsider Attorneys’ Fees Under Octane Fitness - In Adjustacam, LLC v. Newegg, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1882, the Federal Circuit held that a district...more

Consideration Under Octane Fitness Requires Fresh Case Analysis

by McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a district court decision for proper application of the exceptional case standard set forth in Octane Fitness v. Icon Health & Fitness (IP Update, Vol. 18,...more

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

This was a busy week for precedential cases at the Circuit. In AIA v. Avid, the Circuit rules that there is no right to a jury trial as to requests for attorney fees under § 285. In Romag v. Fossil, a majority rules that the...more

Federal Circuit: Lanham Act Fee Awards Should Be Lead-Free

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Octane Fitness, most clients ask what the chances are that they will recover their attorneys fees. This is always a tricky question and is even more complicated in trademark infringement...more

District Court Awards Attorney’s Fees after Holding That Plaintiff Had Repeatedly Sought to Avoid a Section 101 Ruling

by Knobbe Martens on

In Shipping and Transit, LLC v. Hall Enterprises, Inc., a district court recently held that a patent infringement case was “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and the defendant was entitled to recover attorney fees and costs...more

5 Key Takeaways: Three Years After Octane Fitness – Patent Litigation Fee Fights

Kilpatrick Townsend’s Clay Holloway, a partner in the firm’s Atlanta office, recently participated in a webinar as part of a panel to discuss the issue of attorney fees three years after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in...more

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

In AdjustaCam v. Newegg, the Circuit reverses the denial of attorney fees where Judge Gilstrap simply adopted a pre-Octane Fitness determination by a prior judge, despite the Circuit’s post-Octane Fitness remand of the case...more

Federal Circuit Reverses Fee Award in Case Tagged as Exceptional

While the Supreme Court’s decisions in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. and Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc. significantly relaxed the standard for awarding attorney fees under 35...more

Pumping Up Exceptional Cases Under the Octane Fitness Standard

A flurry of activity from various courts this past week on “exceptional cases” under Section 285 of the Patent Act provided notable guidance for practitioners and patent owners, with a particular emphasis on the motivation...more

Octane Fitness and Highmark Decisions Turn Three

by Latham & Watkins LLP on

Both courts and litigants are only now appreciating the full impact of the Supreme Court’s 2014 decisions on fee shifting in patent cases. Key Points: ..Successful Section 285 motions have increased substantially in the...more

Supreme Court and Precedential Federal Circuit Patent Cases

In SCA v. First Quality Baby Products, the Supreme Court holds that laches should not be available as a defense in patent cases, refusing to concur with the Circuit’s en banc holding that the Patent Act’s 6-year limitation on...more

Lanham Act Lesson: Dropbox Drop Kicks Opponent and Scores Attorneys’ Fees Award

by Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

As the sun set on 2016, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Sunearth, Inc. v. Sun Earth Solar Power, Co. embraced a new standard for awarding attorneys’ fees in Lanham Act cases. Adopting the U.S. Supreme Court’s rationale...more

Illinois Federal Judge Awards Treble Damages and Attorneys’ Fees in Kurt Vonnegut-Fueled Opinion

On February 10, 2017, an Illinois federal judge determined that R-Boc Representatives violated an injunction issued following a jury trial on their alleged patent infringement. In a unique opinion replete with quotations...more

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments - January 2017

In this appeal arising from the N.D. Cal., the Federal Circuit is tasked with deciding whether Octane Fitness effectively overturned Shum v. Intel Corp. on the issue of awarding costs when there is more than one “prevailing...more

2016 Patent Litigation Year in Review

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati is pleased to present its 2016 Patent Litigation Year in Review. WSGR’s patent litigation practice is nationwide in scope and has received national recognition in recent years, with our...more

Intellectual Property Law - December 2016

Design Patents—Supreme Court Decides Samsung v. Apple - Why it matters: On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Samsung v. Apple, holding that, for purposes of a "total profits" damages award for infringement of a...more

Ninth Circuit Joins Octane Fitness Trend for Trademark Cases

by McDermott Will & Emery on

In 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its ruling in Octane Fitness (IP Update, Vol. 17, No. 5), in which it examined the fee-shifting provision of the Patent Act and clarified the types of “exceptional” cases...more

Ninth Circuit Expands the Octane Fitness Attorneys’ Fee Standard to the Lanham Act

by Perkins Coie on

Following several other circuits as well as patent law precedent, in SunEarth, Inc. v. Sun Earth Solar Power Co., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently made it easier for Lanham Act litigants to recover...more

Ninth Circuit Applies Octane Fitness’ Loosened Fee-Shifting Standard to Trademark Cases

by Latham & Watkins LLP on

Ninth Circuit joins growing trend in circuit courts, which has practical implications for trademark litigants on both sides. Two years have passed since the US Supreme Court added some teeth to the Patent Act’s...more

Ninth Circuit Retires Fee-Award Standard, Imports Octane Fitness to Trademark Cases

This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit joined a majority of appellate courts that have rejected rigid tests for attorneys’-fees awards in favor of flexible discretion at the district court level. The...more

Ninth Circuit Extends Octane Fitness Attorneys’ Fee Analysis To Lanham Act Cases

In the 2014 case of Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. (and a companion case), the Supreme Court articulated a standard for courts to use when deciding whether to award attorneys’ fees in patent cases. As we...more

The 9th Circuit Injects Some “Octane” into the Lanham Act Attorneys’ Fee Provision

by Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

In the immortal words of the most recent Nobel Laureate in literature, “the times they are a changin.’” Section 35(a) of the Lanham Act provides that “[t]he court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to...more

Litigation Alert: Ninth Circuit Adopts Broader Octane Fitness Standard for Attorneys’ Fees Awards under the Lanham Act

by Fenwick & West LLP on

On October 24, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit after an en banc rehearing in Sunearth, Inc. v. Sun Earth Solar Power Co., LTD., adopted the Octane Fitness standard for determining whether a case is...more

Octane Fitness and Highmark Apply to Ninth Circuit Attorney Fee Awards under the Lanham Act

by Snell & Wilmer on

On October 24, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, held that district courts analyzing a request for attorney fees under the Lanham Act should consider the totality of the circumstances, as set forth in...more

171 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 7
Cybersecurity

"My best business intelligence,
in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.