Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Intellectual PropertyFeaturesLitigationLJN NewslettersPatent LitigationThe Intellectual Property Strategist

USPTO Continues to Demand Attorneys' Fees for District Court Appeals

By Judith L. Grubner
May 02, 2017

Section 145 of the U.S. Patent Act (35 U.S.C. §145) and §21(b) of the Lanham Act covering trademarks (15 U.S.C. §1071(b)) provide for two types of challenges from the decisions of the U.S. Patent and Trademark (USPTO) internal appeals boards — the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). Applicants in cases where there are no adverse third parties can bring a new civil case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia or the USPTO decision refusing to register a patent or trademark can be directly appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Further appeals from the district court's decisions are to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in trademark cases or to the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Parties in the district court action are allowed to submit new evidence not considered by the TTAB, but parties in direct appeals to the Federal Circuit are not.

In district court patent cases, §145 provides that “all the expenses of the proceedings shall be paid by the applicant.” In the district court trademark cases, §21(b) provides that “unless the court finds the expenses to be unreasonable, all the expenses of the proceeding shall be paid by the party bringing the case, whether the final decision is in favor of such party or not.” Neither statute defines “expenses.” Prior to 2013, the USPTO did not request reimbursement for the salaries of its attorneys and paralegals who worked on the case, only for more common costs, such as filing fees, photocopying expenses, and the like. However, starting in 2013, the USPTO has been requesting reimbursement for the time spent by its attorneys and paralegals on district court challenges to PTAB and TTAB decisions.

This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

Compliance Officers: Recent Regulatory Guidance and Enforcement Actions and Mitigating the Risk of Personal Liability Image

This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.