When a patent or trademark applicant loses in front of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), they can either appeal to a court of appeals or develop a fuller record by starting a district court action. If the applicant goes to district court, then the applicable statute says that the applicant-appellant pays “[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings,” and everyone at one time agreed that those expenses did not include fees for the government’s attorneys. That changed in 2013, when the USPTO unilaterally started including its attorney and support staff fees amongst the expenses. On the first Monday of October—the first day of arguments in the Supreme Court’s 2019 term—the Court will hear argument in Peter v. NantKwest, No. 18-801. The question in that case is whether the word “expenses” includes the government’s attorneys’ fees. On July 22, we filed an amicus brief on behalf of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) arguing that it does not.
- (Not) Copyright Infringement: Is dbrand Infringing Nintendo’s IP?
- The Transmissibility of Information: How Your Trade Secrets Are Like a Virus
- Examining Antitrust Guidance on Cooperation in Fighting COVID-19
- Everything Depends on Coronavirus R&D Partnerships—Don’t Let the Critics Wreck Them
- Boys Will Be Boys: Getting a Foot in the Funding Door for Women Entrepreneurs
- International Approaches to Accelerating Innovation and Access in the Pandemic
- Defensive Publications: A Cost-Effective Tool to Supplement Your Patent Strategy
- A Stylized Word Mark in One Country May Be Too Simple and Common in Another
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, May 22: Copyright Office Issues Section 512 Safe Harbor Report, CAFC Denies Review of PTAB Institution Decision and Director Iancu on Possible Filing Deadline Extension
- CAFC Finds Claim for Delivery Notification System Abstract as Directed to a Longstanding Commercial Practice