News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States › American Rule

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary... more +
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term.  The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Supreme Court: Patent Office Cannot Be Reimbursed for Attorney and Paralegal Salaries

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP on

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

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

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

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

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Supreme Court Rejects USPTO Attorney Fee Policy

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints on

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

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - December 2019 #2

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC on

PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Peter v. Nantkwest, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-801 (Sup. Ct. Dec. 11, 2019) - This week the Supreme Court answered a long-simmering question concerning the extent to which a person who brings a...more

Jones Day

U.S. Supreme Court: "All the Expenses" Does Not Include Attorney’s Fees - In Peter v. Nantkwest, Inc., the Supreme Court...

Jones Day on

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

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

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP on

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.

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

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

Jones Day

No Longer Paid in Full: "Full Costs" Covers Only Taxable Costs in Copyright Cases

Jones Day on

A unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court held that the word "full" was insufficient to justify awarding additional, nontaxable costs to the prevailing party. Under the American Rule, the prevailing party ordinarily must bear...more

Buchalter

The Supreme Court Clarifies Standard For Attorney Fee Awards In Copyright Cases

Buchalter on

Copyright infringement litigation has been on the rise in recent years, particularly in the Central District of California, with the apparel industry feeling the brunt of this uptick. In a typical case, a plaintiff alleges...more

BCLP

ASARCO’s Revenge: Do Estate Professionals Now Have to Charge the Same Fees to an Estate or Committee that They Would Charge a...

BCLP on

Either from our prior posts, or from the great posts from Stone and Baxter’s Plan Proponent blog or from Bracewell’s Basis Points blog, we all know the Supreme Court’s holding in ASARCO: a strict interpretation of Section...more

Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner

Delaware Bankruptcy Court Holds, Twice: “ASARCO is Here to Stay” (But Your Authors Have Hatched Another Plan; Read Below!)

Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner on

You may recall the holding and analysis of ASARCO from Jay’s previous post, here. At bottom, ASARCO followed a strict interpretation of Section 330(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, holding that professionals are allowed to charge...more

Cole Schotz

Delaware Bankruptcy Courts Foreclose Creative Attempts to Distinguish ASARCO

Cole Schotz on

On June 15, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case of Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC, 135 S. Ct. 2158 (2015), denying compensation to two law firms for the fees they incurred in defending objections to...more

Arnall Golden Gregory LLP

U.S. Supreme Court: Attorney’s Fees Provisions Must be Strictly Construed

Arnall Golden Gregory LLP on

“Our basic point of reference when considering the award of attorney’s fees is the bedrock principle known as the American Rule: Each litigant pays his own attorney’s fees, win or lose, unless a statute or contract provides...more

Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP

Client Alert: Hurts So Good - US Supreme Court Rejects Attorneys Fees in Chapter 11

Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP on

On June 15, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that a law firm could not recover fees it incurred in defending its own fee application. THE ASARCO CASE - The case involved the copper company ASARCO LLC that filed...more

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Baker Botts v. Asarco: The Supreme Court Shows Again That It Really Doesn’t Understand Corporate Bankruptcy Cases

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP on

The Supreme Court has not handled its recent major bankruptcy decisions well. The jurisdictional confusion engendered by its 2011 decision in Stern v. Marshall was only partially clarified by this term’s opinion in Wellness...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

On June 15, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC, No. 14-103, holding that § 330(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code does not permit bankruptcy courts to award fees that § 327(a) professionals incur...more

27 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2
Next »

"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:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide