A federal appeals court has upheld a decision mandating that Icon Health and Fitness pay $1.6 million in attorney's fees for filing an unwarranted patent lawsuit against a competitor.

Icon sued Octane Fitness in 2009, saying that Octane's high-end elliptical machines infringed US Patent No. 6,019,710, which describes an elliptical machine that allows for adjustments to accommodate individual strides. After two years of litigation, a district court judge found that Octane's machines didn't infringe. Octane asked for an award of legal fees, but in 2011, a judge rejected the company's bid. That decision was upheld on appeal.

Octane didn't get its fee award despite the fact that it had uncovered e-mails in discovery suggesting that Icon was simply using the lawsuit to hamper a smaller competitor. An Icon executive had described the '710 patent as an "old patent we had for a long time that was just sitting on the shelf."

But the fact is that it was nearly impossible to win fees in a patent case in 2011. However, Octane didn't take its loss sitting down. The company appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on the case in 2014.

In a 9-0 vote, the court issued an opinion (PDF) making it much easier to get attorney's fees. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the opinion, holding that patent laws call for awarding fees in an "exceptional" case, which is "simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigating position... or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated."

With that, the case was kicked back down to the lower courts. Under the new standard, the district court judge awarded $1.6 million to Octane over the objections of Icon lawyers.

On Friday, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld (PDF) that award in its entirety. The district court found that Icon's claim construction arguments were "wholly at odds with the patent text, prosecution history, and inventor testimony," The court also found that Icon included Nellie's Fitness, an equipment distributor, as a defendant for the purpose increasing Octane's legal costs.

The appeals judges found "no clear error in its analysis" and upheld the district court's award. The panel dismissed a cross-appeal by Octane asking for a larger award, which would also cover litigation over the fees.

There's no higher court to appeal the case to except for the Supreme Court, which has already weighed in on the matter. That makes the chances of a further appeal infinitesimal, and the $1.6 million figure is likely final.

Octane's lawyer, Rudy Telscher, said in a 2014 interview with Ars that his client had spent about $2 million in defense costs at that time. The only reason Octane was able to pursue the matter for so long, Telscher said, is because the company had purchased IP litigation insurance.