Octane and Highmark - Supreme Court lowers standard for awarding attorneys' fees in patent cases

by DLA Piper

The United States Supreme Court issued two related opinions earlier today regarding the appropriate standard for awarding attorneys’ fees in patent litigation, Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., and Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc. At issue in Octane was whether the “exceptional case” standard for awarding attorneys’ fees in patent litigation under 35 U.S.C. § 285 was too high, and at issue in Highmark was whether a District Court’s award under § 285 should be subject to deference or reviewed de novo.  Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court in both cases, which was unanimous except for Justice Antonin Scalia disagreeing with three footnotes in Octane.

While the effect of these decisions on reducing patent troll litigation remains to be seen, they could have an immediate impact on the various legislative patent litigation reform proposals being considered in Congress. 

The Court’s opinions today lower the standard for awarding attorneys’ fees and reviewing such decisions, overruling the Federal Circuit’s standard from Brooks Furniture Mfg., Inc. v. Dutailier Int’l, Inc., 393 F. 3d 1378 (2005).

In Octane, the parties are competing exercise manufacturers.  Icon sued Octane for patent infringement, and the district court found no infringement at summary judgment, so Octane sought attorneys’ fees under § 285.  The district court denied Octane’s motion under the Brooks Furniture standard, which required that the party seeking to shift attorneys’ fees under § 285 show that the infringement claim was “exceptional” both because it was “objectively baseless” and brought in “subjective bad faith.”  The Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of Octane’s motion under Brooks Furniture

The Supreme Court’s 12-page decision in Octane today overturned the Brooks Furniture standard, finding instead that each case is a matter of discretion and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.  Justice Sotomayor wrote that “exceptional” is not defined in § 285, and thus found that exceptional means “uncommon,” “rare” or “not ordinary,” rejecting the Brooks Furniture standard requiring both objective and subjective portions as “overly rigid.”  The Court held that a party could satisfy § 285’s “exceptional” requirement by showing that, by a preponderance of evidence, the infringement claim is “simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position (both the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated.” 

While it remains to be seen how courts will interpret this standard, the key language is that a claim must “stand out” for a district court to award attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party.  The opinion further stated that lowering the standard is proper because the prior Brooks Furniture standard requiring a finding of baselessness and bad faith should be addressed under a court’s inherent power to sanction, and changing the § 285 standard to cases that merely “stand out” is proper because otherwise § 285 would be superfluous.

In Highmark, Highmark filed a declaratory judgment that Allcare’s patent for “utilization review” in “managed health care systems” was invalid and unenforceable.  Allcare counterclaimed for patent infringement, and the district court entered a final judgment of noninfringement for Highmark at summary judgment.  After a § 285 “exceptional case” motion, the district court awarded Highmark its attorneys’ fees, finding that Allcare had engaged in a pattern of vexatious litigation conduct, and pursued frivolous claims and defenses.  The district court awarded Highmark slightly over $5 million in fees and expenses.  The Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part on a de novo basis without deference pursuant to Brooks Furniture, reversing the § 285 exceptional case finding as to one claim but not another, and awarding no fees for the litigation misconduct.  

The Supreme Court’s five-page decision in Highmark today overturned the standard of de novo review for § 285 motions under Brooks Furniture.  Justice Sotomayor, citing her simultaneous opinion in Octane, wrote “[o]ur holding in Octane settles this case: Because § 285 commits the determination whether a case is ‘exceptional’ to the discretion of the district court, that decision is to be reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion.”  The opinion cites the standard of Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U. S. 552, 558 (1988), which held that “decisions on ‘matters of discretion’ are ‘reviewable for ‘abuse of discretion.’”

Justice Sotomayor went on to say that a district court is “better positioned” to decide whether a case is exceptional due to its experience with the case over a “prolonged period of time.”   Thus, the Supreme Court held that “an appellate court should apply an abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing all aspects of a district court’s § 285 determination.”

Now that the Supreme Court has made it easier to seek fees in patent cases based on existing law, the present disagreements in Congress regarding fee-shifting in patent cases may be moot.  The Court’s opinion in these cases could not have been more opportune: the Senate Judiciary Committee is holding another hearing on its leading patent litigation reform bill (S. 1720) on Thursday, May 1 at 10:00 am.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© DLA Piper | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

DLA Piper

DLA Piper on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"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.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*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.