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.
- Looming Leahy Bill Would End Fintiv Practice at PTAB
- Patent Filings Roundup: Trio of Actions Accuse IP Investments of Coordinated Campaign with Intellectual Ventures Backend; Judge Albright Cancels One of 141 WSOU-Asserted Patents; New Magnetar Entity Surfaces
- International: WIPO Reports Increasing Prevalence of Alternative Dispute Resolution for Business-to-Business Copyright Disputes
- New Tillis-Leahy Bills to Boost Innovation: The Good, the Bad and the Nonsense
- Where Have All of the Ex Parte Appeals Gone?