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

Cookies Settings

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

Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
The IP boutique is betting that growing investment in quantum and semiconductors will fuel demand as technology shifts toward physical systems
Lawyers say the overhaul better reflects commercial reality, with changes spanning novelty searches, digital designs and access to a small claims track, but stopping short of criminalising unregistered design infringement
Carpmaels & Ransford hires its fourth partner of the year and wins access to UPC files, as fresh orders address costs, confidentiality and the use of divisional patents
Peter Ling of Lenz & Staehelin in Zurich discusses trends in patent litigation, the regulation of AI and the benefits of teaching IP
Brandsmiths and Powell Gilbert will contest claims over several UK trademarks in a High Court case examining the ownership and revival of a heritage brand
Hogan Lovells Cadwalader is taking a fresh strategic approach to pricing in its AI strategy. It could amplify calls for law firms to ditch the billable hour
Charles Harding plans to build a new team around life sciences oppositions and contentious work, drawing on his three decades developing a practice from scratch at D Young & Co
Gift this article