Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “an appellate court should apply an abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing all aspects of a district court’s § 285 determination”
• holding that appellate courts must apply an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing Section 285 determinations
• noting that, “[t]raditionally,” decisions on matters of discretion are reviewable for abuse of discretion
• holding that “the exceptional-case determination is … reviewed only for abuse of discretion” because “the text of the statute emphasizes the fact that the determination is for the district court” and because the inquiry is “rooted in factual determinations”
• holding that a district court “abuse[s] its dis- cretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law” (quot- ing Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405, 110 S. Ct. 2447, 2461 (1990))
• noting that “the word ‘exceptional’ in § 285 should be interpreted in accordance with its ordinary meaning” (citing Octane Fitness, 134 S. Ct. at 1755)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).