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
- Novartis’ Entresto Patent Claims Revived by CAFC
- INTA Urges EUIPO Grand Board to Confirm Human Face Marks are Not Excluded from Trademark Registration
- New USPTO Fee Rule for Continuing Applications: Key Changes and Strategic Considerations for Applicants
- AI and the Level of Ordinary Skill: Why Patent Law Must (and Can) Adapt to AI-Augmented Invention
- Federal Circuit Upholds PTAB Win for Patent to Detect Genetic Disorders