Posts Tagged: "Octane Fitness"

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision in an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York last Thursday that in part clarified that “a plaintiff prosecuting a trademark infringement claim need not in every case demonstrate actual consumer confusion to be entitled to an award of an infringer’s profits.” The Second Circuit court also remanded the case back to the District Court to apply the Octane Fitness standard for determining “exceptional” cases under the Lanham Act.

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s award of attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. In particular, the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision based on the plaintiff’s inadequate pre-suit investigation of infringement in the related cases. See Thermolife Int’l, LLC v. GNC Corp., Nos. 2018-1657, 2018-1666, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13135 (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2019) (Before Taranto, Bryson, and Stoll, J.) (Opinion for the Court, Taranto, J). Leland Stanford Junior University (Stanford) and Thermolife International, LLC (Thermolife) are the owners and exclusive licensee, respectively, of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,891,459, 6,117,872, 6,646,006, and 7,452,916 directed to methods and compositions involving the amino acids arginine and lysine, to be ingested to enhance vascular function and physical performance. Thermolife, later joined by Stanford, brought suit alleging Hi-Tech, Vital, and multiple companies from the GNC family infringed the aforementioned patents. The parties agreed to bifurcate the proceedings: a consolidated trial on invalidity and enforceability would be held; and if necessary, separate proceedings on infringement would follow. The district court found the asserted claims of all four patents invalid as either being anticipated or obvious.

The cost of obtaining a U.S. patent has not significantly changed for the past 10 years. This remarkable stability is confirmed by the AIPLA Economic Survey, our own fees, and our general knowledge of the market. The major costs for obtaining a U.S. patent include the drafting fee, the cost of responding to USPTO office actions and the USPTO fees. The first two fees have not increased in over 10 years for many firms and the government fees have increased but remain relatively low compared to the other fees. With respect to the price of issued patents, the 2018 IAM Benchmarking Survey points to a bear market for U.S. patents, which are “cheaper” year after year. A fall in prices is reported, with 24% of corporate respondents stating that patents are cheaper than a year ago; the previous year’s survey had 36% reporting a fall in prices. Such relatively stable cost and low price are disharmonious with the fact that a U.S. patent covers the largest market in the world—and a growing market. Despite a slight dip in 2009, the U.S. GDP has grown steadily for the past 20 years. Even if the recent volatility in the stock market is a sign of a difficult 2019, the long-term positive trend is likely to continue.

Last month, the U.S. Patent Office issued patent number 10,000,000. This historic occasion calls for rethinking our patent system and the future of American innovation… It is nothing short of misleading the public by telling inventors that in exchange for their invention disclosure they will receive a limited monopoly, a patent. Most of the time inventors get no monopoly rights whatsoever. At best, after years of litigation, millions of dollars in attorney fees and multiple challenges to their patent validity at the Patent Office, they may get some monetary compensation. But is it worth the hassle?

In mag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., Romag sued Fossil for patent and trademark infringement and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”) after one batch of Fossil’s handbags appeared to have counterfeit magnetic snaps. The jury found Fossil liable for patent and trademark infringement and for violating the CUTPA. The Federal Circuit affirmed the patent and trademark infringement verdicts. After that appeal, Romag sought attorney’s fees under the Patent Act, Lanham Act, and the CUTPA. The district court awarded attorney’s fees under all but the Lanham Act… The Supreme Court’s “objectively unreasonable” standard for attorney’s fees set forth in Octane applies to infringement cases under the Lanham Act and the Patent Act. In attorney’s fee disputes, courts must consider the totality of the circumstances, including the conduct of both parties.

While Justice Scalia served on the Supreme Court for nearly three decades, his contributions to the area of intellectual property law were quite limited. Scalia did famously refer to patents as “gobbledegook” during the KSR v. Teleflex oral arguments. Scalia was the only Justice not to sign onto an opinion in Bilski v. Kappos that would have recognized that at least some software is patent eligible. But Justice Scalia did not author any of the major patent decisions considered by the Court during his tenure. The passing of Justice Scalia does not seem likely have much of an impact on intellectual property cases, particularly patent cases. Having said this, I could see legislative history becoming more relevant than anyone would have anticipated just a week ago when the Supreme Court considers Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee.

For hoarders, once an item comes into their possession, such individuals develop an unreasonable emotional attachment to it. As these possessions, many of which are viewed by others as worthless, continue to accumulate, they become both a health and safety hazard to the hoarders and those about them until some concerned party, typically a family member or a governmental authority, intervenes. Much the same problem is found in some managers of patent portfolios.

North Castle Partners announced the sale of Octane Fitness, LLC, a leading manufacturer of zero-impact cardiovascular fitness equipment, to Nautilus, Inc. (NYSE: NLS) for a purchase price of $115 million. Those familiar with the patent industry will readily recognize the name Octane Fitness. It was Octane Fitness, the much smaller company that successfully sued and prevailed in a patent infringement lawsuit against ICON Health & Fitness. The case would go all the way to the United States Supreme Court on the issue of attorneys’ fees.