USPTO Can Receive Its Attorneys’ Fees for Applicant Appeals to District Court

Author: Yoonhee Kim
Editor: Kevin D. Rodkey

In NantKwest, Inc. v. Matal, No. 2016-1794 (Fed. Cir. June 23, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the USPTO’s motion for attorneys’ fees, holding that the “expenses” authorized under 35 U.S.C. § 145 include the USPTO’s attorneys’ fees.

Section 145 allows a patent applicant to appeal a patentability decision from the Patent Trial and Appeals Board to a district court rather than directly to the Federal Circuit. In exchange, the statute requires the applicant to pay “[a]ll the expenses of the [district court] proceedings.” At issue here was whether these “expenses” include the USPTO’s attorneys’ fees or whether each party must bear its own attorneys’ fees under the general “American Rule.” To resolve this question, the Federal Circuit examined history of the Patent Act of 1836, modern legal dictionary definitions and treatises, and Supreme Court and regional circuit decisions interpreting “expenses” in other statutes, concluding that the statutory “expenses” include attorneys’ fees. The Federal Circuit found further support in the “unique” nature of § 145, under which the USPTO is the only defendant and because these appeals require the USPTO to divert time and resources of attorneys and staff from other endeavors. The Federal Circuit thus rejected NantKwest’s position and concluded that § 145 permits awarding the pro-rata share of the USPTO’s attorneys’ fees to defend § 145 appeals to the district courts.

Judge Stoll dissented and would have found that neither the text of § 145 nor its legislative history provides a “specific and explicit” authorization from Congress to deviate from the American Rule.

 

DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Tagged ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: