Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In 2013, the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) adopted a new policy under which any party commencing a de novo proceeding challenging a PTO decision would be responsible to pay a pro rata share of the salaries of the government attorneys working on the matter, based on a new interpretation of language that has appeared in the Patent Act for 175 years — and more recently was included in the Lanham Act as well. That language requires the plaintiff seeking de novo review to pay “all expenses of the proceedings,” win or lose. However, the term expenses had always in practice been construed (until recently) to mean only lesser costs — not attorneys’ fees. On Dec. 11, 2019, the Supreme Court rejected the PTO’s new interpretation of the Patent Act in Peter v. NantKwest, Case No. 18-801, slip op., which held that the American Rule, a centuries-old principle under which each party bears its own attorneys’ fees, does apply to this statute. The Court further concluded that the actual language of the statute itself simply does not support shifting fees.
*May exclude premium content
By Stacey C. Kalamaras and Henry Kaskov
This article explores the options available to a client to value its trademarks during a financial crisis, to ensure one of the most valuable assets it owns can continue to work for the company and see it through the lean times.
By Jared Looper
Federal Treasury Enterprise Sojuzplodoimport v. Spirits International BV
What do the fall of the Soviet Union, a heist of trademark rights, and Stolichnaya vodka have in common? They are all key components of the Russian Federation’s efforts to reclaim its trademarks in Stolichnaya vodka.
By Laura O’Laughlin, Harriet Ho and Duy (Joey) Duong
As survey evidence has become increasingly common in litigation, it is important to remember that not all surveys are made the same. It’s important to be able to identify the right survey methodology for the matter at hand. Third in a series
By Jeff Ginsberg and Abhishek Bapna
Federal Circuit: ITC Did Not Err in Denying Non-Respondent’s Petition to Rescind Exclusion Order Based on Invalidity Grounds
Federal Circuit: District Court Did Not Err in Ruling that ‘Half-Liquid’ Is Indefinite
Federal Circuit: District Court Did Not Err In Allowing Jury to Determine Infringement Based on Products’ Compliance with Standard