The Labor Law Insider: Beware the Unfair Labor Practice - Not Just for Unions Anymore
JONES DAY TALKS®: Women in IP: 2020 in Review and a Look Toward 2021
KT Sound Bytes Episode 1 | The Effects of the Supreme Court Decision in Liu v. SEC
JONES DAY PRESENTS®: Trade Secret Enforcement in the United Kingdom
JONES DAY TALKS®: Straight Talk About False Advertising: What Every Lawyer Needs to Know
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 86: Tackling a California Bar Exam Essay: Remedies
Episode 5: Business Divorce, Delaware Style
Should Wall Street Fear Mary Jo White?
Last year, in our inaugural issue of “The Year in Review,” we reported that since the landmark jury verdict in the IP litigation between Apple and Samsung in 2012, which awarded more than $1B to Apple for infringement of...more
On December 27, 2020, Congress signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, into law. The omnibus act includes new legislation affecting patent, copyright and trademark law. A brief summary of key provisions is provided...more
Jones Day's Meredith Wilkes and Anna Raimer discuss 2020's most significant developments in trademark law and preview what's to come in 2021, including possible progress in Washington on the highly anticipated Trademark...more
A bipartisan, bicameral group of legislators in the U.S. Congress recently published a draft Trademark Modernization Act to reform the trademark application process and the remedies for trademark infringement. The draft TM...more
In This Issue - Inventorship, Patenting and AI: The Public Comments on Patenting Artificial Intelligence Inventions - Interest in artificial intelligence has become so keen that questions previously found only in works...more
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
This article discusses foreign filing requirements in the United States. Assuming the United States is the country of invention, the following questions are explored: (1) who needs to seek permission to file a patent...more