U.S. Supreme Court: Federal Courts Have Discretion to Award Attorney Fees in Patent Lawsuits

April 30, 2014

On April 29, 2014, in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., No. 12-1184, 572 U.S. ___ (Apr. 29, 2014), the U.S. Supreme Court issued an effectively unanimous decision giving federal courts greater discretion to award attorney fees to prevailing parties, albeit on a case-by-case basis.

The Patent Act provides that "[t]he court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party." (35 U.S.C. § 285.) Prior to 2005, this provision had been interpreted as giving federal district courts discretion in determining whether the circumstances of a patent case justify the award of attorney fees to the victor.

However, in 2005, the Federal Circuit (which hears nearly all appeals in patent cases) changed the rule. In Brooks Furniture Manufacturing., Inc. v. Dutailer International, Inc., 393 F.3d 1378, the Federal Circuit introduced a new framework that allowed fee shifting only in limited circumstances, and that raised the standard of proof for justifying such fee shifting. This change not only limited the circumstances under which fee shifting was available, but raised the bar on how persuasive the evidence of those circumstances must be.

On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit's framework. Writing for an effectively unanimous Court, Justice Sotomayor characterized the Brooks holding as imposing "a more rigid and mechanical formulation" that was "so demanding that it would appear to render [the fee shifting provision] largely superfluous." (Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., No. 12-1184, slip. op. at 4, 7.) The Court concluded that the only limitation on a district court's discretion provided by the statute is that attorney fees may be awarded in "exceptional" cases. The Court held that the "ordinary meaning" of an "exceptional" case is "simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigation position" in light of various factors, such as the "governing law and the facts of the case" or the "unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated." The Court held that district courts may "determine whether a case is 'exceptional' in the case-by-case exercise of their discretion, considering the totality of the circumstances." Justice Sotomayor also noted that "patent-infringement litigation has always been governed by a preponderance of the evidence standard" and reversed the Federal Circuit's higher "clear and convincing evidence" standard.

Although this decision appears to restore some discretion to federal district courts, Congress is currently considering a proposed amendment to the Patent Act that would remove that discretion entirely. H.R. 3309, also known as the Innovation Act, includes an amendment to 35 U.S.C. § 285 that could effectively require the federal district court to award attorney fees to the victor in patent litigation cases. Currently, H.R. 3309 has passed the U.S. House of Representatives and is being considered by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

Firm Highlights
Diversity & Inclusion

Golf Foundation of Missouri Awards First Larry L. Deskins, Sr. Scholarship

More
Client Alert

FTC Adds Teeth to the ‘Made in USA’ Rule

More
News

David W. Sweeney Represents Advantes Group in $7.2 Million Apartment Project

More
News

Brian P. Pezza Quoted in SHRM Articles on Employee Vaccination Status Disclosure and Employer Vaccination Policies

More
Client Alert

OSHA’s New Guidance Regarding Indoor Mask Wearing, COVID-19 Vaccination Mandates, Regular Testing of Unvaccinated Workers, and More

More
News

Four Lewis Rice Attorneys Named 2022 “Lawyer of the Year” by Best Lawyers

More
Client Alert

Supreme Court Limits Ability to Compel Access to Private Property Without Compensation

More
News

John C. Bodnar Named BTI M&A Client Service All-Star

More
News

Michael D. Mulligan Publishes Article in ACTEC Law Journal Comparing Sales to an Intentionally Defective Irrevocable Trust and a to Beneficiary Intentionally Defective Irrevocable Trust

More
News

Lewis Rice Wins $1.5 Million in Compensation for Covington Landowners

More
News

61 Lewis Rice Attorneys Named Best Lawyers for 2022, 16 Named Ones to Watch

More
Client Alert

FTC Reverses Course on Treatment of Debt Payoff Under HSR Act

More
Client Alert

Missouri Now Requires Employers to Provide Leave and Accommodations for Victims of Domestic and Sexual Violence

More
News

Neal F. Perryman Named to Missouri’s POWER List in Employment Law by Missouri Lawyers Media

More
News

Lewis Rice Recognized as Top M&A Firm by BTI Consulting Group

More
News

Lauren R. Carey Creates New Blog for Social Media Influencers

More
News

Lewis Rice Wins Nearly $500,000 in Compensation for Sarasota Landowners

More
Client Alert

Property Owners Can Push the Issue Under Illinois Mechanic’s Lien Law

More
News

Matthew J. Haas Offers Commentary for Inside P&C Article on Business Interruption Insurance and COVID-19

More
News

Michael R. Thiessen Recognized as Pro Bono Spotlight by KCMBF for August

More