close

For more than four decades, Fenwick & West LLP has helped some of the world’s most recognized companies become, and remain, market leaders. From emerging enterprises to large public corporations, our clients are leaders in the technology, life sciences and cleantech sectors and are fundamentally changing the world through rapid innovation.  MORE >

Fenwick & West was founded in 1972 in the heart of Silicon Valley—before “Silicon Valley” existed—by four visionary lawyers who left a top-tier New York law firm to pursue their shared belief that technology would revolutionize the business world and to pioneer the legal work for those technological innovations. In order to be most effective, they decided they needed to move to a location close to primary research and technology development. These four attorneys opened their first office in downtown Palo Alto, and Fenwick became one of the first technology law firms in the world.  MORE >

From our founding in 1972, Fenwick has been committed to promoting diversity and inclusion both within our firm and throughout the legal profession. For almost four decades, the firm has actively promoted an open and inclusive work environment and committed significant resources towards improving our diversity efforts at every level.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we are proud of our commitment to the community and to our culture of making a difference in the lives of individuals and organizations in the communities where we live and work. We recognize that providing legal services is not only an essential part of our professional responsibility, but also an excellent opportunity for our attorneys to gain valuable practical experience, learn new areas of the law and contribute to the community.  MORE >

Year after year, Fenwick & West is honored for excellence in the legal profession. Many of our attorneys are recognized as leaders in their respective fields, and our Corporate, Tax, Litigation and Intellectual Property Practice Groups consistently receive top national and international rankings, including:

  • Named Technology Group of the Year by Law360
  • Ranked #1 in the Americas for number of technology deals in 2015 by Mergermarket
  • Nearly 20 percent of Fenwick partners are ranked by Chambers
  • Consistently ranked among the top 10 law firms in the U.S. for diversity
  • Recognized as having top mentoring and pro bono programs by Euromoney

MORE >

We take sustainability very seriously at Fenwick. Like many of our clients, we are adopting policies that reduce consumption and waste, and improve efficiency. By using technologies developed by a number of our cleantech clients, we are at the forefront of implementing sustainable policies and practices that minimize environmental impact. In fact, Fenwick has earned recognition in several areas as one of the top US law firms for implementing sustainable business practices.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we have a passion for excellence and innovation that mirrors our client base. Our firm is making revolutionary changes to the practice of law through substantial investments in proprietary technology tools and processes—allowing us to deliver best-in-class legal services more effectively.   MORE >

Mountain View Office
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
650.988.8500

San Francisco Office
555 California Street
13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.875.2300

Seattle Office
1191 Second Avenue
10th Floor
Seattle, WA 98101
206.389.4510

New York Office
1211 Avenue of the Americas
32nd Floor
New York, NY 10036
212.921.2001

Shanghai Office
Unit 908, 9/F, Kerry Parkside Office
No. 1155 Fang Dian Road
Pudong New Area, Shanghai 201204
P.R. China
+86 21 8017 1200


Litigation Alert: Supreme Court Relaxes Standard for Fee Shifting in Patent Cases

Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., No. 12-1184, Slip Op. Apr. 29, 2014

Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., No. 12-1163, Slip Op. Apr. 29, 2014

In a pair of decisions issued yesterday, the United States Supreme Court unanimously1 lowered the threshold for obtaining attorneys’ fees in patent cases pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and increased the level of deference owed to a district court’s fee-shifting determination. Specifically, in Octane Fitness, the Court held that a case is exceptional under § 285 if it “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 also rejected the requirement that such a showing must be established by clear and convincing evidence, and instead adopted a preponderance of the evidence standard. In Highmark, the Court established that exceptional case determinations will be reviewed for abuse of discretion.

35 U.S.C. § 285 authorizes courts to “award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party” in “exceptional cases.” Historically, courts evaluated the “totality of the circumstances” in determining whether a case was exceptional under § 285 and its predecessor, § 70. A 2005 Federal Circuit decision, however, announced a rule for determining whether a case is exceptional, requiring “material inappropriate conduct” by a party or that the claim was both “objectively baseless” and “brought in subjective bad faith.” Brooks Furniture Mfg., Inc. v. Dutailier Int’l, Inc., 393 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The Federal Circuit also required a party seeking attorneys’ fees to establish that the case is “exceptional” by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 1382.

In Octane Fitness, the Supreme Court characterized the Brooks Furniture test as “unduly rigid” and “so demanding that it would appear to render § 285 largely superfluous” in view of the inherent power of courts to make exceptions to the general American rule against fee-shifting. Octane Fitness, Slip Op. at 7, 11. The Court observed that traditional fee-shifting jurisprudence took a “holistic, equitable approach,” whereas the Federal Circuit’s Brooks Furniture decision applied a “rigid and mechanical formulation” that “superimpose[d] an inflexible framework onto statutory text that is inherently flexible.” Id.

The Court reached the proper standard by looking to the plain meaning of the statute, and specifically “exceptional,” which means “uncommon,” “rare,” or “not ordinary.” Given that meaning, the Supreme Court held that an “exceptional case” is “one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position… or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated.” Id. This formulation extends beyond the narrow set of cases for which the Brooks Furniture test allowed fee-shifting, which the Supreme Court viewed as including conduct that is independently sanctionable. Id. at 8.

The Court also rejected the Brooks Furniture standard of proof as “clear and convincing evidence” in favor of a “preponderance of the evidence” standard, which is “the standard generally applicable in civil actions” including patent infringement litigation. Id. (internal quotation omitted).

The Highmark decision took Octane Fitness one step further, establishing that “all aspects” of a district court’s “exceptional case” determination are to be reviewed for abuse of discretion, rather than the de novo standard applied by the Federal Circuit below. Highmark, Slip Op. at 4. The Federal Circuit previously held that the exceptional case inquiry is “a question of law based on underlying mixed questions of law and fact and is subject to de novo review.” Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 687 F.3d 1300, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal quotation omitted). The Supreme Court disagreed with the Federal Circuit’s conclusion, holding instead that under its Octane Fitness framework, the “exceptional case” determination is within the discretion of the district court and reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion. Highmark, Slip Op. at 5.

This pair of decisions can be seen as an attempt by the Court to address the well-publicized problems with meritless patent lawsuits, particularly by so-called “patent trolls.”2 On the one hand, a lower standard for fee shifting could reduce the number of clearly meritless lawsuits filed as fears of fee awards begin to predominate over hopes of quick settlement payouts. On the other, the increased flexibility of the Octane Fitness approach, together with additional deference to district courts granted by Highmark, invites variability among district courts. In turn, that could increase the appeal of forum shopping as different district courts develop reputations for their willingness to award fees.

Current litigants facing clearly meritless claims should consider the options offered by the Supreme Court’s decisions. Given the increased likelihood of recovering fees, settlement of meritless claims may be less attractive. Alternatively, patentees asserting such claims may be willing to entertain significantly lower or walkaway settlements to avoid liability for attorneys’ fees. Likewise, patentees asserting claims should take caution to evaluate their claims at each stage of a case, particularly after material adverse rulings, to ensure continued prosecution of an action does not render it exceptional.

 


1 Although the judgments in both cases were unanimous, Justice Scalia did not join three footnotes in the Octane Fitness opinion that referred to portions of legislative history. No justice filed a separate opinion in either case.

2 Although there is no discussion in the opinions, the subject of patent trolls was heavily emphasized during oral argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​ ​​