Honey-roasted precedents

25 February 2014 By Reynolds Holding Follow @holdingren

Smart packaging is often as important as solid legal points. Think campaign contributions dressed as free speech or class actions as business killers. But a U.S. patent suit target may have gone too far in calling its accuser a troll. The justices prefer truth in advertising.

This content is for Subscribers only

To access full Breakingviews.com content you must be a subscriber. Please use the following link to request a trial.

Context News

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled on Feb. 26 to hear arguments over the proper standard for awarding payment of the winner’s legal fees in a patent lawsuit.

The case involves two makers of elliptical exercise machines, Octane Fitness and Icon Health and Fitness. Icon accused Octane of infringing its patent on a stroke rail, which connects the movable foot rail to the machine’s frame. A U.S. district court found in favor of Octane without a trial, but declined the company’s request for fees, ruling that the case did not qualify under precedent established by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the nation’s highest patent court. The appeals court affirmed the decision.

Email a friend

Please complete the form below.

Required fields *