In the case of Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with clarifying the standard for awarding attorney's fees in patent litigation cases under section 285 of the Patent Act. The dispute began when ICON Health & Fitness sued Octane Fitness for patent infringement. After successfully defending itself against these claims, Octane sought to recover its attorney’s fees from ICON but was denied by both district and appellate courts based on a rigid standard that required proof of misconduct during litigation or in securing the patent and that allegations were baseless and made in bad faith. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned these decisions, rejecting this restrictive interpretation as overly rigid and inconsistent with statutory text. Instead, it held that an "exceptional" case justifying fee shifting is simply one which stands out from others concerning either substantive strength of a party's litigating position or unreasonable manner in which case was litigated. District courts should determine exceptionality on a case-by-case basis considering totality of circumstances.

There was no dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court case of Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 2013. The decision was unanimous (9-0) in favor of Octane Fitness, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivering the opinion for a united court. The justices agreed that the Federal Circuit's standard for determining an "exceptional" patent litigation case under section 285 of Patent Act is too rigid and inflexible. They held that district courts may determine whether a case is "exceptional" on a case-by-case basis considering the totality of circumstances.