Legal Opinion
Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Octane Fitness, LLC
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided July 1, 2015No. Civil No. 09-319 ADM/SERPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ANN D. MONTGOMERY, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
On April 1, 2015, the undersigned United States District Judge heard oral argument on Defendant' Octane Fitness, LLC’s (“Octane”) Renewed Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs [Docket No. 260] and Motion to Strike or, in the Alternative, Motion to Reopen Discovery [Docket No. 272]. Octane argues that it is entitled to attorney’s fees under § 285 of the Patent Act based on the new standard announced by the Supreme Court in this case. See Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., - U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1749, 188…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2014
- Brooks Furniture Manufacturing, Inc. v. Dutailier International, Inc. And Dutailier, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
- Depuy Spine, Inc. (Formerly Known as Depuy Acromed, Inc.) v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. (Formerly Known as Sofamor Danek Group, Inc.)Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc., Guidant Sales Corporation, and Eli Lilly and Company v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., Pacesetter, Inc., and Ventritex, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Alamo Group Inc. v. Fecon, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2021
- ESIP Series 1 v. doTerra InternationalDistrict Court, D. Utah · 2022
- LHO Chicago River, L.L.C. v. PerilloDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2020