News & Analysis as of

Prevailing Party Remedies

Butler Snow LLP

Everything Old is New Again … Legal Principles Remembered

Butler Snow LLP on

Every once in a while, we’ll see an appellate decision that serves as a commercial law primer – reminding business litigators and transactional attorneys of basic legal principles that sometimes are not precisely recalled...more

Butler Snow LLP

Recovering Attorney’s Fees in Texas: Five Lessons

Butler Snow LLP on

Obtaining an award of attorneys’ fees might be the final step in a long-waged litigation battle but to do so successfully requires careful planning and diligence from the outset of a case. The Texas Supreme Court recently...more

Fish & Richardson

Supreme Court Holds USPTO Cannot Recover Its Attorney's Fees Under § 145

Fish & Richardson on

On December 11, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the long-standing presumption that parties are responsible for their own attorney’s fees—holding that the “[a]ll expenses of the proceedings” provision of...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Supreme Court: PTO Not Entitled to Attorney’s Fees in District Court Appeals

McDermott Will & Emery on

In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is not entitled to recover its attorney’s fees in an appeal to a district court...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Supreme Court Rejects PTO’s Attempt to Recover Attorneys’ Fees - Intellectual Property News

In Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., the Supreme Court held that the Patent and Trademark Office cannot recover attorneys’ fees against an applicant in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 145. An unsuccessful applicant for a patent has...more

Weintraub Tobin

U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down USPTO’s Request For Attorney’s Fees

Weintraub Tobin on

In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court in Peter v. NantKwest, case number 18-801, struck down the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) recent and often-criticized effort to recoup its legal fees – even in cases...more

McCarter & English, LLP

No Fees For You – Supreme Court Says USPTO May Not Recover Attorneys’ Fees For Defending Certain Appeals

McCarter & English, LLP on

Under the so-called American Rule, litigants are normally expected to pay their own attorneys’ fees, win or lose, unless a statute clearly permits or requires fee-shifting. In the underlying litigation in Peter v. NantKwest,...more

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Supreme Court Issues Unanimous Ruling Denying PTO Attorneys’ Fees for Section 145 Actions

On December 11, 2019, in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., 589 U.S. __ (2019), the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) cannot recover the salaries of its legal...more

Hogan Lovells

Supreme Court: USPTO Cannot Collect Attorney’s Fees Under 35 U.S.C. § 145

Hogan Lovells on

The Supreme Court held that the PTO cannot collect attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 145, which requires challengers of PTAB decisions to pay all expenses of the proceedings....more

Foley & Lardner LLP

American Rule Prevails; PTO May Not Collect In-House Attorneys' Fees as "Expenses"

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In a short opinion issued on December 11, 2019, the Supreme Court rejected the PTO’s recent attempt to collect attorneys’ fees under a little-used provision of the Patent Act. The decision in Peter v. NantKwest (No. 18-801)...more

Snell & Wilmer

Supreme Court Holds “Expenses” Exclude PTO Employee Salaries in Civil Action Challenges Under the Patent Act

Snell & Wilmer on

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) may not recover the salaries of its legal personnel as “expenses” in a civil action challenging an adverse decision by the PTO under...more

McDermott Will & Emery

SCOTUS Rules PTO Not Entitled to Attorney’s Fees in Appeals to E.D. Virginia from Adverse PTAB Decisions

McDermott Will & Emery on

On December 11, the US Supreme Court held that the US Patent and Trademark Office is not entitled to recover its attorney’s fees in an appeal to the Eastern District of Virgina from an adverse decision of the Patent Trial and...more

Cooley LLP

Alert: Supreme Court Rejects USPTO’s Attempt to Extract Legal Fees for District Court Appeals

Cooley LLP on

On December 11, 2019, the US Supreme Court issued a unanimous order in Peter v. NantKwest, holding that a statute allowing the USPTO to recover "expenses" for appeals of patent refusals to a district court does not allow the...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Peter v. NantKwest, Inc.

On December 11, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., No. 18-801, holding that Section 145 of the Patent Act does not require dissatisfied patent applicants who file a civil action in...more

Sunstein LLP

March 2019 IP Update - Not All Litigation Expenses Are Recoverable Under the Copyright Act

Sunstein LLP on

On March 4, the Supreme Court overturned a ruling that required Rimini Street to pay $12.8 million for Oracle’s litigation costs in a copyright infringement case. Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc. Many of the costs...more

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP

The Supreme Court weighs in on copyright matters – a costly decision and a registration requirement

It has been a big week for copyright cases, and it’s only Wednesday. This Monday, the Supreme Court issued opinions on two copyright cases pending before it from the October 2018 term. ...more

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

US Supreme Court Issues Two Unanimous Rulings Clarifying Meanings of ‘Registration’ and ‘Full Costs’ in Copyright Act

On March 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two unanimous decisions interpreting the Copyright Act. In Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com LLC, 586 U.S. ___, the Court resolved a circuit split over when...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc.

On March 4, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., No. 17-1625, holding that a court’s discretion under section 505 of the Copyright Act to award “full costs” to the...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

MoFo IP Newsletter - August 2016

Supreme Court Abolished Federal Circuit's Test for Willfulness - On June 13, 2016, in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. ___ (2016), the Supreme Court unanimously abrogated the Federal Circuit’s...more

19 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide