Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
USPTO Continues to Demand Attorneys' Fees for District Court Appeals
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.
Fourth Circuit: USPTO Gets Expenses, Regardless of Outcome
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.