The U.S. Supreme Court's recent 9-0 decision in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., Case No. 18-801, informs strategic cost considerations in appeals challenging adverse decisions issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office...more
12/17/2019
/ 35 U.S.C. § 145 ,
American Rule ,
Appeals ,
Attorney's Fees ,
Civil Claims ,
Fee-Shifting ,
Lanham Act ,
Litigation Fees & Costs ,
Patent Act ,
Patent Applicants ,
Peter v NantKwest Inc ,
Prevailing Party ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 145 ,
Trademark Application ,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ,
Trademarks ,
USPTO
A party appealing a PTO decision must pay the PT0's expenses regardless of the applicant's success.
Booking.com successfully challenged the United States Patent and Trademark Office's ("PTO") refusal to register its mark...more
This decision should be a welcome development for patent applicants seeking review.
On July 27, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its en banc opinion in NantKwest, Inc. v. Iancu, No. 16-1794...more
8/10/2018
/ 35 U.S.C. § 145 ,
Administrative Proceedings ,
American Rule ,
Attorney's Fees ,
En Banc Review ,
Litigation Fees & Costs ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Split of Authority ,
Statutory Interpretation ,
Trademarks ,
USPTO
On June 23, 2017, the Federal Circuit held in NantKwest v. Matal that patent applicants seeking review of a decision from the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") to the district court must pay the PTO's legal...more