On July 27, 2018, in a 7-4 decision the en banc court of the Federal Circuit held that the American Rule prohibits courts from shifting attorneys' fees from one party to another absent Congress' specific and explicit directive and that the USPTO is not entitled to such fees under 35 USC 145. Nantkwest, Inc. v. Iancu, No. 16-1764 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2018) (en banc).
In this case, the Examiner rejected an application directed to a method of treating cancer based on obviousness and the Board affirmed the decision. The applicant sought review in the district court (E.D. Va.) under 35 USC 145 and the court issued a summary judgment in favor of the USPTO. USPTO then sought reimbursement of expenses for the district court proceeding under Section 145 including attorneys fees of over $78,000. The district court denied the fees citing the American rule which requires each litigant to pay for his/her attorney's fees. On appeal, a Federal Circuit panel reversed the decision and the en banc court ordered review sua sponte.
The en banc court affirmed the district court's decision in a 7-4 decision. Writing for the majority, Judge Stoll reasoned that the word "expenses" does not include an implicit authorization to award attorneys fees under Section 145. According to the Court, the existence of several Patent Act provisions awarding attorneys fees demonstrates Congress' use of "specific and explicit" language in the Patent Act to shift fees when it so desired. Judge Prost, in her dissent joined by Judges Dyk, Reyna and Hughes, argued that the text of Section 145 imposing "all expenses" on the applicant displaces the American Rule.
Full text of the opinion is available here.
In this case, the Examiner rejected an application directed to a method of treating cancer based on obviousness and the Board affirmed the decision. The applicant sought review in the district court (E.D. Va.) under 35 USC 145 and the court issued a summary judgment in favor of the USPTO. USPTO then sought reimbursement of expenses for the district court proceeding under Section 145 including attorneys fees of over $78,000. The district court denied the fees citing the American rule which requires each litigant to pay for his/her attorney's fees. On appeal, a Federal Circuit panel reversed the decision and the en banc court ordered review sua sponte.
The en banc court affirmed the district court's decision in a 7-4 decision. Writing for the majority, Judge Stoll reasoned that the word "expenses" does not include an implicit authorization to award attorneys fees under Section 145. According to the Court, the existence of several Patent Act provisions awarding attorneys fees demonstrates Congress' use of "specific and explicit" language in the Patent Act to shift fees when it so desired. Judge Prost, in her dissent joined by Judges Dyk, Reyna and Hughes, argued that the text of Section 145 imposing "all expenses" on the applicant displaces the American Rule.
Full text of the opinion is available here.
RSS Feed
