The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit updated its earlier opinion to remove language ascribing motive to a prolific inventor’s actions before the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO). Hyatt v. Hirshfeld, Case Nos....more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s award of attorney’s fees under the prevailing party rule but affirmed the district court’s denial of the US Patent & Trademark Office’s (PTO) request...more
Addressing for the first time whether the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) can assert prosecution laches as a defense in a civil action brought under 35 U.S.C. §145, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that...more
HYATT v. HIRSHFELD - Before Reyna, Wallach, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Summary: The PTO met its burden to prove prosecution laches for bulk-filed patent...more
Angadibir Singh Salwan is the named inventor on a patent application titled "Physician to Patient Network System for Real-Time Electronic Communications & Transfer of Patient Health Information," which disclosed a private and...more
In Peters v. NantKwest, Inc., the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, held that the “all expenses of the proceedings” provision of a 35 U.S.C. § 145 civil appeal does not include the...more
On December 11, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) controversial policy of shifting attorneys’ fees in Peter v. NantKwest, Case No. 18-801. The Court ruled that the USPTO...more
PETER V. NANTKWEST, INC. Before Sotomayor, Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Appeal from the Federal Circuit on rehearing en banc. Summary: A patent applicant appealing an adverse decision...more
Laura Peter, Deputy Director, Patent and Trademark Office v. NantKwest, Inc., No. 18-801 (December 11, 2019) - Yesterday, the Supreme Court overruled a recent interpretation of 35 USC §145 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark...more
On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Iancu v. NantKwest to resolve a circuit split concerning “expenses” a patent applicant must pay when challenging the United States Patent and Trademark...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
Federal Circuit Summary - En Banc (excl. Chen), Opinion for the court filed by Stoll, joined by Newman, Lourie, Moore, O’Malley, Wallach, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District...more
Last Friday, the Federal Circuit issued its en banc opinion in NantKwest, Inc. v. Iancu, No. 16-1794 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2018). The Court held, by a 7-4 vote (Judge Chen, the former PTO Solicitor, was recused), that if the...more
On July 27, 2018, the Federal Circuit ruled that a patent applicant’s obligation to pay the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) “expenses” for district court proceedings to review patent application rejections does not...more