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, September 6: House Version of PERA Introduced; Judicial Council Confirms Extension of Newman Suspension; OpenAI Asks Court to Dismiss Claims and Focus on Fair Use in Copyright Battle
- How to Satisfy Constitutional and Statutory Standing Requirements in Patent Infringement Actions
- Book Publishers Win at Second Circuit: Internet Archive’s Free Library is Not Fair Use
- Trump Ordered to Halt Use of Isaac Hayes Song
- SoftView Petitions Full Federal Circuit to Rehear Decision on Patentee Estoppel at USPTO