The U.S. supreme Court has heard oral argument in two cases presenting issues relating to the standards that trial and appellate courts apply when awarding attorney’s fees in certain patent cases. Octane Fitness v. Icon Health & Fitness, No. 12-1184 (U.S., argued February 26, 2014) (“Whether the Federal Circuit’s promulgation of a rigid and exclusive two-part test for determining whether a case is ‘exceptional’ under 35 U.S.C. § 285 improperly appropriates a district court’s discretionary authority to award attorney fees to prevailing accused infringers in contravention of statutory intent and this Court’s prec- edent, thereby raising the standard for accused infringers (but not patentees) to recoup fees and encouraging patent plaintiffs to bring spurious patent cases to cause competitive harm or coerce unwarranted settlements from defendants.”); and Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., No. 12-1163 (U.S., argued February 26, 2014) (“Whether a district court’s exceptional case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (which permits the court to award attorney’s fees in exceptional cases), based on its judgment that a suit is objectively baseless, is entitled to deference.”). Decisions are expected by the end of the Court’s term in June 2014.