Patent Applicants Not Required to Pay PTO Attorneys’ Fees

Patent Applicants Not Required to Pay PTO Attorneys’ Fees

Late last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed, in an en banc opinion, a district court’s earlier ruling that a patent applicant does not have to reimburse the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or PTO) for in-house attorneys’ fees.

Per Nantkwest, Inc. v. Iancu, No. 16-1794, when the PTO affirms an examiner’s decision to reject a patent application, § 145 of the Patent Act permits the applicant to challenge the board’s decision in district court. Per the statute, the applicant is responsible for paying for “[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings” that the PTO incurs, such as travel, printing and expert witnesses. The PTO argued that the statute should include attorneys’ fees as well. In a 7-4 decision, the panel disagreed.

“We hold that it does not, for the American Rule prohibits courts from shifting attorneys’ fees from one party to another absent a “specific and explicit” directive from Congress. The phrase “[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings” falls short of this stringent standard. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.”

In a Patently-O post, Dennis Crouch points out that that original panel was split on the meaning of “all expenses,” and that the majority held that “expenses” include the PTO attorneys’ fees, including in-house. The current panel disagreed.

“Given the primary purpose of the American Rule — protection of access to courts — the PTO’s alleged distinction makes little sense. We submit that the policy behind the American Rule would be even more strongly implicated where attorneys’ fees would be imposed on a winning plaintiff.”

The current panel also disagreed with the PTO’s reliance in its argument on Shammas v. Focarino, in which a divided Fourth Circuit awarded attorneys’ fees to the PTO.

“We respectfully submit that Shammas’s holding cannot be squared with the Supreme Court’s line of non-prevailing party precedent applying the American Rule.”

Bottom line, as Couch states, patent applicants that challenge a PTO decision will still be expected to pay for other expenses, but not PTO attorneys’ fees.

Share this entry
LLM, Inc. unifies the legal process by combining legal holds, case strategy, matter and budget management, review and analytics in a single, web-based platform. We connect legal strategy to tactics in a way no one else can, so every part of the process is actionable. Our product scales to help corporate and law firm teams gain cost-savings and eliminate inefficiencies.

Send this to a friend