The U.S. Supreme Court recently confronted the ever-increasing concerns regarding frivolous patent infringement suits by clarifying the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 285, the fee-shifting statute, which allows prevailing parties to recover attorneys' fees in "exceptional" cases. In its 2014 Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. decision, the Supreme Court addressed the statutory term "exceptional," lowering the threshold for determining the types of patent cases in which attorneys' fees should be awarded. Parties seeking attorneys' fees in patent cases were previously required to show that a case was exceptional because "there has been some material inappropriate conduct" or because the litigation was "brought in subjective bad faith" and is "objectively baseless." In this article, Finnegan attorneys Lionel M. Lavenue, Shaton C. Menzie, and R. Benjamin Cassady review two district court decisions on whether attorneys' fees expended in AIA challenges are recoverable under the "exceptional case" standard set in 2014 in Octane Fitness.
Previously published by Bloomberg BNA
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
