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.
- Good Faith Doctrine and NFTs – How a Bored Ape NFT Dilemma May Present Unique Copyright and Contract Issues
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, July 1: Tillis and Daines Question Google on Political Email Censorship, Third Circuit Finds No Copyright in Fireworks Communications System, and Eleventh Circuit Clarifies Likelihood of Confusion Test in Reverse Infringement Cases
- SCOTUS Kicks Patent Eligibility Cases to the Curb in Last Move of the Term
- Patent Litigation Financing: Fighting Efficient Infringement with Funding
- USPTO Report Underscores Split on State of U.S. Patent Eligibility Jurisprudence