Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc.

Fee-shifting provision: patent case: petitioner Highmark Inc. moved for fees under the Patent Act’s fee­-shifting provision, which authorizes a district court to award attor­ney’s fees to the prevailing party in “exceptional cases.” 35 U. S. C. §285.

Held: All aspects of a district court’s exceptional-case determination under §285 should be reviewed for abuse of discretion. Prior to Oc­tane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., ante, p. ___, this determination was governed by the framework established by the Federal Circuit in Brooks Furniture Mfg., Inc. v. Dutailier Int’l, Inc., 393 F. 3d 1378. Octane rejects the Brooks Furniture framework as unduly rigid and holds that district courts may make the exceptional ­case determination under §285 in the exercise of their discretion. The holding in Octane settles this case. Decisions on “matters of dis­cretion” are traditionally “reviewable for ‘abuse of discretion,’ ” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U. S. 552, 558, and this Court previously has held that to be the proper standard of review in cases involving similar de­terminations, see, e.g., id., at 559; Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U. S. 384, 405 (U.S.S.Ct., 29.04.2014, Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc., Docket 12-1163, J. Sotomayor, unanimous).

Allocations de dépens, cf. décision Octane Fitness rendue le 29.04.2014 également sur le même sujet : la loi fédérale sur les brevets d’invention permet l’attribution de dépens à la partie victorieuse dans des cas exceptionnels. La décision de les attribuer ou non est confiée à la discrétion du Tribunal de première instance. Sa décision à ce niveau ne sera revue en procédure de recours qu’en cas d’abus du pouvoir de discrétion.