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.
- Straight to the Prompt: IP Lawyers Must Develop AI Skills NOW
- This Week in Washington IP: Evaluating the U.S.’s Role in IP Leadership, CHIPS Act Successes and Semiconductor Production, and the White House Policy on AI
- Laser Lessons: Has the Supreme Court Undermined Pioneering Laser Patents?
- Other Barks and Bites for Friday, December 1: Senators Discuss AI and Intellectual Property; EU Report Finds 86 Million Fake Items Were Detained Last Year; USPTO Releases New China IP Rights Toolkit
- IP Goes Pop! – Lessons From Movies About Innovators