Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.
| Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued February 26, 2014 Decided April 29, 2014 |
|
| Full case name | Octane Fitness, LLC, Petitioner v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. |
| Docket nos. | 12-1184 |
| Citations | 572 U.S. ___ (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Sotomayor, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Kagan (in full); Scalia (all except footnotes 1-3) |
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.
In the underlying litigation ICON Health & Fitness, the world's largest maker of exercise equipment, threatened Octane Fitness, a relatively small and specialized maker of elliptical trainers, with a patent infringement suit. Octane Fitness filed a declaratory judgment, arguing that their elliptical products did not infringe ICON's patent, and won on summary judgment and later moved for attorneys fees. The district court denied the motion for attorneys fees, stating that even though Octane Fitness eventually prevailed, ICON's claims were not objectively baseless, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision.
...
Wikipedia