US Supreme Court to reconsider standard for attorneys fees

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

US Supreme Court to reconsider standard for attorneys fees

The US Supreme Court agreed this week to hear two cases that address the standard for deciding whether attorney’s fees should be awarded.

The court has accepted certiorari of Highmark v. Allcare Health Management, and Octane Fitness v. Icon Health and Fitness, which may make it easier to win fees in “exceptional” cases. Both cases stem from patent infringement claims.

In the US, each party is generally responsible for its own legal fees regardless of the outcome of the case, but in “exceptional cases” where one party is found to have abused the court system, they may be ordered to pay their opponent’s costs.

In Highmark v Allcare Health Management, insurance company Highmark is seeking $5 million in costs after it defeated a patent infringement suit by patent licensing business Allcare. The Supreme Court will reconsider the Federal Circuit’s decision to partially reverse a district court decision awarding Highmark the fees.

In Octane Fitness v Icon Health and Fitness, the Federal Circuit ruled that it would use a “rigid and exclusive two-part test” to determine fee-shifting conditions. In hearing the case, the Supreme Court will consider whether the appellate court’s application of the test “improperly appropriates a district court’s discretionary authority to award attorney fees.”

A full list of the latest cases the Supreme Court has decided to accept is available on its website.



more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Examiner statistics could help patent prosecution practitioners tailor strategies, turning an area of high variability into a potential competitive advantage
The England and Wales High Court’s ruling in Accord v Novartis may not rewrite the law on plausibility, but it does signal a pragmatic approach that could provide greater certainty for life sciences innovators
Firms with established sports relationships and specialised expertise are well positioned to capture the market’s expanded pool of IP work
Gunjan Paharia discusses developing RIA, an AI platform built to draw on decades of institutional knowledge, support junior lawyers, and reshape how legal teams work
A strong Canadian business helped lift profits, but the IP service group's latest results underline the pressure facing its operations in Australia, New Zealand and parts of Asia
Wins in court have been key to the six-year-old firm’s growth, as one of its founders explains
The firm’s co-CEO discusses patent litigation, collaboration with overseas colleagues and the next generation of leaders
Two recent decisions demonstrate the courts’ creativity in cutting-edge IP disputes that tested their jurisdictional powers
Aditi Verma Thakur, managing partner at Aishani Partners, discusses 5 am wake-ups, working with high-performing professionals and staying calm under pressure
After more than three decades at Wilson Sonsini, Ian Edvalson explains why he moved to expand his life sciences transactional practice
Gift this article