NantKwest filed suit in district court under 35 U.S.C. § 145 to contest the PTO’s rejection of its patent application. The USPTO prevailed and filed a motion for reimbursement of all of its litigation expenses, including attorney’s fees. 35 U.S.C. § 145 requires that “all expenses of the proceeding be paid by the applicant,” which the USPTO claimed included their fees and costs… While Congress can create fee-shifting statutes, 35 U.S.C. § 145 did not reflect explicit congressional authorization for fee-shifting that would displace the American Rule.
The post En banc CAFC: Patent applicant Not required to pay PTO attorney fees in District Court appeal appeared first on IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law.
Recent Posts
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, May 9: USPTO Responds to GAO Report; Stewart Welcomes National Inventors Hall of Fame Inductees; CAFC Defines ‘Ground’ for IPR Estoppel Statute
- PTAB Designates as Informative Stewart Decision on Discretion to Institute in Context of Parallel District Court Litigation
- Judge Hughes Again Calls Out CAFC’s Overly Rigid Article III Analysis for Pharmaceutical Cases
- Coke Stewart’s Recent Show Cause Order Offers Hope for Addressing Serial Patent Challenges
- The USPTO Should Reintroduce the AFCP Program—Now