{"id":2118,"date":"2018-07-27T15:31:21","date_gmt":"2018-07-27T19:31:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2118"},"modified":"2018-07-28T16:00:23","modified_gmt":"2018-07-28T20:00:23","slug":"american-rule-defeats-usptos-claim-for-attorneys-fees-in-%c2%a7145-actions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2118","title":{"rendered":"American Rule Defeats USPTO’s Claim for Attorneys’ Fees in \u00a7145 Actions"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Nantkwest, Inc. v. Iancu<\/a>, [2016-1794] (July 27, 2018), the en banc Federal Circuit affirmed the district court decision that an award of “all expenses” pursuant to 35 U.S.C. \u00a7145 did not include the USPTO’s attorneys’ fees in its unsuccessful defense of the rejection of Nantkwest’s application.<\/p>\n

35 USC \u00a7145 permits a disappointed patent applicant to challenge
\nthe PTAB\u2019s decision in district court. However, applicants\u00a0who invoke \u00a7145 are required by statute to pay \u201c[a]ll the\u00a0expenses of the proceedings\u201d incurred by the U.S. Patent\u00a0and Trademark Office in defending the Board\u2019s\u00a0decision, regardless of the outcome. Historically, the\u00a0PTO sought recovery of\u00a0travel and printing expenses, and more recently\u00a0 expert witnesses fees.\u00a0 Most recently, the PTO has interpreted\u00a0\u00a7145 as including its\u00a0attorneys\u2019 fees.<\/p>\n

Calling the American Rule a \u201cbedrock\u00a0principle\u201d of this country\u2019s jurisprudence, the majority of the Federal Circuit held that the American Rule prohibits courts from shifting\u00a0attorneys\u2019 fees from one party to another absent a \u201cspecific\u00a0and explicit\u201d directive from Congress. Contrary to the panel decision that sided with the PTO, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court judgement denying the PTO’s request for attorneys fees.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Nantkwest, Inc. v. Iancu, [2016-1794] (July 27, 2018), the en banc Federal Circuit affirmed the district court decision that an award of “all expenses” pursuant to 35 U.S.C. \u00a7145 did not include the USPTO’s attorneys’ fees in its unsuccessful … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[44],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2118","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-attorneys-fees"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2118","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2118"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2118\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2119,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2118\/revisions\/2119"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2118"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2118"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2118"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}