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.
- Property Rights Groups Urge Garland and Kanter to Withdraw ‘Misguided’ Policy Statement on SEPs Subject to FRAND
- CAFC Nixes District Court Claim Construction in Win for Firearms Patent Owner
- Tips for Litigating Multiple Simultaneous Patent Infringement Investigations at the ITC
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, January 14: Property Rights Groups Oppose SEP Draft Policy Statement, PTAB POP Issues Ruling on Wire Transfer of IPR Filing Fee, and SCOTUS Denies Appeal in Breach of Royalty Agreement Case
- Senate Judiciary Committee Sends Vidal and Stark Nominations to Senate Floor