Partner Jonathan Moskin has written an article for The Intellectual Property Strategist, “The Price to Pay for De Novo Review of PTO Decisions,” about whether attorneys’ fees should be considered expenses when parties dissatisfied with decisions of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office seek de novo review in the federal courts.
At issue is a provision of the Patent Act dating back to 1836 that says all expenses of the proceedings shall be paid by the applicant, regardless of who wins the case. For 175 years, when the PTO sought recovery of the expenses of the proceedings, it never sought to include attorneys’ fees. But four years ago, the agency began asserting that the language of the provision includes attorneys’ fees.
Moskin has more than a passing interest in the subject. He is part of a team of Foley attorneys who are appealing to the Fourth Circuit a district court award of $76,000 in attorneys’ fees to the PTO stemming from a trademark dispute with the travel site Booking.com that the agency lost. That award is at odds with a recent en banc decision of the Federal Circuit, which held that the agency’s fee policy violates the so-called American Rule, which holds that the parties generally must pay their own legal fees.
At issue is a provision of the Patent Act dating back to 1836 that says all expenses of the proceedings shall be paid by the applicant, regardless of who wins the case. For 175 years, when the PTO sought recovery of the expenses of the proceedings, it never sought to include attorneys’ fees. But four years ago, the agency began asserting that the language of the provision includes attorneys’ fees.
Moskin has more than a passing interest in the subject. He is part of a team of Foley attorneys who are appealing to the Fourth Circuit a district court award of $76,000 in attorneys’ fees to the PTO stemming from a trademark dispute with the travel site Booking.com that the agency lost. That award is at odds with a recent en banc decision of the Federal Circuit, which held that the agency’s fee policy violates the so-called American Rule, which holds that the parties generally must pay their own legal fees.
Author(s)
Related Insights
August 14, 2025
Foley Ignite
Will the Late Summer M&A Rebound Continue into Fall?
The lazy days of summer seem to be behind us as merger and acquisition (M&A) activity is getting a jump start. A recent article in the…
August 14, 2025
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
Tariffs and Your Contracts: Why do delivery terms matter?
In light of a trade landscape rife with tariffs, companies are examining their commercial contracts to judge the exposure to increased costs of production. One area of a supply contract that cannot be overlooked when determining this type of exposure is the delivery terms for the product sale. This is because the delivery terms of a contract may identify the party responsible for payment of tariffs.
August 14, 2025
Foley Viewpoints
SEC Intensifies Scrutiny of Chief Compliance Officers
Two recent SEC enforcement actions serve as a sharp reminder that Chief Compliance Officers (CCOs) can face personal liability for what…