Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Supreme Court Broadens Ability to Obtain Attorney's Fees in Patent Cases
The Supreme Court has recently issued opinions relaxing the standards for awarding attorney's fees against a patent enforcer, beginning with its decision on April 29, 2014, in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749, 188 L. Ed. 2d 816 (2014).
In Octane Fitness, ICON Health & Fitness sued Octane Fitness, LLC for patent infringement. After the district court granted summary judgment in Octane's favor, Octane moved for attorney's fees under the Patent Act's fee-shifting provision. Section 285 of the Patent Act allows a court to grant attorney's fees to the prevailing party in exceptional cases. 35 U.S.C. '285. The district court denied Octane its claim for attorney's fees finding that the lawsuit was not objectively baseless and that there was no evidence of subjective bad faith. Octane Fitness, LLC, at 1755.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of fees based on its rigid interpretation of exceptional cases. Prior to Octane Fitness, the Federal Circuit only found a case to be exceptional pursuant to Section 285 in two situations: 1) when there was material inappropriate conduct such as willful infringement, fraud, or misconduct during litigation; or 2) when the case was brought in subjective bad faith and was objectively baseless. Id. at 1754. The Supreme Court's decision in Octane Fitness rejected this application and broadened the test used to determine an “exceptional case” within the Patent Act's fee-shifting provision. Id. at 1756.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?