Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Statutory Interpretation – Patent Act – Expenses

By: Derek Hawkins//January 8, 2020//

Statutory Interpretation – Patent Act – Expenses

By: Derek Hawkins//January 8, 2020//

Listen to this article

United States Supreme Court

Case Name: Laura Peter, et al. v. Nantkwest, Inc.

Case No.: 18-801

Focus: Statutory Interpretation – Patent Act – Expenses

Section 145 of the Patent Act affords applicants “dissatisfied with the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board” an opportunity to file a civil action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. 35 U. S. C. §145. The statute specifies that “[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings shall be paid by the applicant.” Ibid. The question presented in this case is whether such “expenses” include the salaries of attorney and paralegal employees of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). We hold that they do not.

Affirmed

Dissenting:

Concurring:

Full Text


Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests