CALL US: 206.533.3854
CALL US  206.533.3854
AEON Law logo full color transparent

“Exceptional Cases” Defined

US Supreme Court
Makes fee-shifting easier
In patent cases

As we previously reported, last fall the US Supreme Court granted certiorari petitions in two cases involving the award of attorneys’ fees in patent cases.

Under the Patent Act, a court may award reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in “exceptional cases.”

However, the Patent Act fails to define what an “exceptional case” is.

According to the case law that developed applying the Act, a case was considered “exceptional” if the litigation was:

· Brought in subjective bad faith, and

· Objectively baseless.

In the past, courts have found that very few patent cases met this standard and thus courts rarely awarded attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party.

It has been argued that this created an unreasonably friendly environment for “patent trolls” who file lawsuits based on patents of questionable validity, or when infringement is unclear, in order to “extort” settlement and licensing fees from the alleged infringers.

In the Octane Fitness case, a federal district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement but denied its motion for attorneys’ fees. The Federal Circuit affirmed.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court held that the framework applied by the Federal Circuit was “unduly rigid and impermissibly encumbers the statutory grant of discretion to district courts.”

The Supreme Court ruled that an “exceptional” case is one that

stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position (considering both the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated.

The Court noted that district courts have discretion to determine whether a case is “exceptional” on a case-by-case basis.

In the Highmark case, the accused infringer also prevailed on summary judgment after spending years in litigation and millions of dollars in legal fees. The district court found that the case was exceptional and merited the award of attorneys’ fees, but the Federal Circuit reversed, on the grounds that at least parts of the plaintiff’s case weren’t frivolous.

In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that appeals courts should be more deferential to district courts when reviewing awards of fees in patent cases.

Related Articles

AEON Law Founder Adam Philipp Ranked Among Leading IP Lawyers in Chambers USA Guide

AEON Law founder Adam Philipp is included in this year’s Chambers USA guide of the leading IP attorneys in AEON’s home market of Washington. Based ...
Read More

AEON Law and Founder Adam Philipp Ranked Among World’s Top Patent Professionals in IAM Guide

AEON Law and founder Adam Philipp are recognized in this year’s IAM Patent 1000: The World’s Leading Patent Professionals. Adam was recommended for patent prosecution ...
Read More

Understanding the Dawn Donut Rule for Trademarks

In trademark law, the general rule is that, where two parties seek to use the same trademark in the same geographic area, the earlier (“senior”) ...
Read More

Let's work together.

Contact us to set up a meeting with an attorney or team member.

Stay Informed

Sign up to receive Patent Poetry—a monthly roundup of key IP issues in our signature haiku format. Four articles (only 68 syllables); zero hassle.

SECTORS

HIGH
TECHNOLOGY

Artificial Intelligence

Blockchain & Cryptocurrency

Computer Technology & Software

Consumer Electronics

Electrical Devices

MECHANICAL
& PRODUCTS​

Cleantech

Mechanical Devices

Consumer & Retail Products

Hardware & Tools

Toys & Games

LIFE SCIENCES
& CHEMISTRY​

Biotechnology

Chemical Compounds

Digital Health

Healthcare Products

Pharmaceuticals

BRANDING
& CREATIVE​

Books & Publications

Brand Creation

Luxury Products

Photography & Video

Product Design

call us  206.533.3854

SERVICES

PROTECT

DEAL

DEFEND