Blog Search

... issue, which perhaps did not get enough coverage in the media: fee-shifting remedy imposed on trademark bullies and gross intentional trademark infringers. In 2014, this Blog was one of the first sources that recognized that the U.S. Supreme Court's Octane Fitness ruling on fee-shifting in patent cases should be extended to trademark and unfair competition cases under the Lanham Act. Under Octane Fitness, it should be much riskier to bring questionable trademark claims and counter claims or behave ...

... v. Dempster, Nos. 13-3305 & 14-1572, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17118 (Sept. 4, 2014). In U.S., each litigant generally pays its own attorneys’ fees, win or lose, unless a special statute applies. As I wrote earlier this year, in a case captioned as Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court made it easier to recover attorneys’ fees in patent cases. The Supreme Court relaxed the standard to invoke the counsel’s fee-shifting provision ...

.... Dutailier Int'l, Inc., 393 F. 3d 1378 (2005). On April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down two important decisions. These decisions likely will loosen the rigid fee-shifting formula applied before. We will discuss one of the two cases: Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. __ (2014). In Octane Fitness, the parties to the litigation are manufacturers of exercise equipment. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. owns U. S. Patent No. 6,019,710 (’710 patent). The patent ...