Talk:Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

No conclusion in the article edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am assuming that this case went to the U.S. Supreme Court because Octane Fitness was found in a district court to have not infringed any copyright brought by ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.?

However after the district court told Octane it could not get back the money it had already spent on retaining attorneys in this case, they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which took the decision that judges do have the discretion to make the loser pay in patent troll cases.

Hence my point, what was the conclusion to this judgement? Did Octane ever get a cent from ICON for trying to scare them into paying a "licence fee" for equipment that was not copyrighted?

This article currently does not state that.81.129.201.106 (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Add topic