October Term 2013 · Docket 12-1184
What standard governs patent fee awards?
The parties dispute the legal test for awarding attorney fees in patent litigation.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Telscher argued for a full equitable assessment of fee awards.
Mr. Phillips defended the district court's thorough analysis of the case.
Mr. Martinez emphasized the discretionary authority granted to district courts.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 5-27 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 5-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 43-31 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 43-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 35-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 35-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 37-45 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 37-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 47-19 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 47-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 45-49
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case concerns the standard for awarding attorney fees in patent suits.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 5-27 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 5-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 43-31 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 43-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-29
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 26, 2014.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
What each side wants
Octane wants a flexible equitable standard for fee awards.
Icon wants the objective baselessness standard to remain.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 5-27 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 5-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 43-31 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 43-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-29
What each side says
Octane argues courts must weigh all equitable factors.
Icon argues the objective baselessness test is correct.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 5-27 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 5-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 43-31 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 43-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-29
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor asked about the difference between objective reasonableness and meritlessness.
Justice Ginsburg questioned the proper court for reviewing fee denials.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 35-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 35-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 37-45 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 37-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 47-19 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 47-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 45-49
Why it matters
The standard determines when losing patent litigants pay opposing counsel fees.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 5-27 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 5-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 43-31 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 43-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-29
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 35-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 35-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 37-45 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 37-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 47-19 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 47-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 45-49
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 5-27 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 5-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 43-31 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 43-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 5-27 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 5-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 43-31 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 43-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-29
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.