The Supreme Court ruled in Peter v. NantKwest today that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) cannot recover the salaries of USPTO attorneys and paralegals who work on civil actions against the USPTO Director in the Eastern District of Virginia. The Court held that the language of Section 145 of the Patent Act, which says that applicants must pay all the expenses of the proceedings for a civil action, “does not overcome the American Rule’s presumption against fee shifting.” The USPTO argued that the Federal Circuit’s en banc 2018 decision holding “all expenses” does not include “expenses that the USPTO incurs when its employees, including attorneys, defend the agency in Section 145 litigation,” is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of “expenses” and Section 145’s “history and purpose.”
Recent Posts
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, October 17: CAFC Finds Prosecution Disclaimer in Examiner Acceptance of Patentee’s Scope; Japan Urges Opt-In Copyright Model for Sora 2; and Seventh Circuit Clarifies Evidence Required for Sound Recording Copyright Claims
- USPTO Issues NPRM on IPR Practice, Withdraws Vidal-Era Proposal
- Federal Circuit Finds No Due Process Violation Stems from Inconsistent Positions on Patent Ownership at PTAB, ITC
- UPC Issues First Permanent SEP Injunction: The Ramifications of Philips v. Belkin | IPWatchdog Unleashed
- Thaler Tells SCOTUS Refusing Copyright to AI-Generated Works Endangers Photo Copyrights, Too