Search for: "Icon Health & Fitness Inc."
Results 141 - 160
of 221
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Nov 2017, 4:09 am
The statute provides that the court may award attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party “in exceptional cases” (see Octane Fitness, LLC v Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., __ US __, __, 134 S Ct 1749, 1756 [2014]). [read post]
25 Jan 2019, 7:31 am
ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Feb 2014, 5:53 am
Icon Health and Fitness and Highmark Inc. v. [read post]
30 Apr 2014, 5:35 am
Icon Health and Fitness and Highmark v. [read post]
24 Feb 2014, 7:46 am
Icon Health and Fitness) considers the standard for awarding the fees in the first instance. [read post]
15 Oct 2021, 7:40 am
ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545 (2014); Highmark Inc. [read post]
28 Jan 2016, 6:14 am
Icon Health & Fitness, 134 S. [read post]
7 May 2021, 1:58 pm
ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. [read post]
8 Feb 2016, 11:23 am
ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1749 (2014). [read post]
29 Dec 2013, 10:08 pm
Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., No. 12-1184 (U.S.), which the Court has set for hearing on February 26, 2014. [read post]
31 Mar 2014, 6:56 am
Icon Health & Fitness (proper standard for determining an “exceptional case” in the attorney fee shifting context of 35 U.S.C. [read post]
26 Feb 2016, 1:21 pm
ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. (2014), a virtually unanimous Supreme Court ruled that the rigid framework crafted by the Federal Circuit to authorize the awarding of attorneys fees was inconsistent with the statutory text and that district courts should be given broad discretion to award attorneys fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285. [read post]
4 Apr 2019, 12:34 pm
ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. [read post]
12 Feb 2018, 6:13 pm
(collecting cases); Icon Health & Fitness,Inc. v. [read post]
1 Mar 2020, 9:01 pm
ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. [read post]
25 Jan 2011, 1:59 am
"Obesity is a serious and far-reaching problem," said Ric Jurgens, chairman and chief executive of Hy-Vee, Inc. [read post]
16 Feb 2016, 11:05 am
ICON Health & Fitness, in which the Court considered the standard for awarding attorney’s fees to a prevailing party under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
15 Feb 2022, 10:31 am
See, e.g., Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Dec 2015, 7:55 am
Icon Health & Fitness (2014) (fee-shifting under § 285 sits within the discretion of the district courts based upon a totality of the circumstances rather than a rigid framework involving both subjectively and objectively bad behavior.) [4] MedImmune v. [read post]
1 May 2014, 9:25 am
ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., which makes it easier for a wrongfully accused defendant in a patent action to recover fees from a plaintiff, I am more interested in whether this same new decision will make it a little less likely that a wealthier company with a questionable patent will take to the courts to try to shut down a comparatively less wealthy competitor or, if not shut them down, to at least bog them down in litigation they cannot afford except by… [read post]
