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

DWF fended off four opponents to help client Dairy UK secure a major victory at the UK Supreme Court
Hepworth Browne led Emotional Perception AI to victory at the UK Supreme Court, which rejected a previous appellate decision that said an AI network was not patentable
James Hill, general counsel at Norwich City FC, reveals how he balances fan engagement with brand enforcement, and when he calls on IP firms for advice
In the second of a two-part article, Gabrielle Faure-André and Stéphanie Garçon at Santarelli unpick EPO, UPC and French case law to assess the importance of clinical development timelines in inventive step analyses
Public figures are turning to trademark protection to combat the threat of AI deepfakes and are monetising their brand through licensing deals, a trend that law firms are keen to capitalise on
News of Avanci Video signing its first video licence and a win for patent innovators in Australia were also among the top talking points
Tom Melsheimer, part of a nine-partner team to join King & Spalding from Winston & Strawn, says the move reflects Texas’s appeal as a venue for high-stakes patent litigation
AI patents and dairy trademarks are at the centre of two judgments to be handed down next week
Jennifer Che explains how taking on the managing director role at her firm has offered a new perspective, and why Hong Kong is seeing a life sciences boom
AG Barr acquires drinks makers Fentimans and Frobishers, in deals worth more than £50m in total
Gift this article