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
18 April 2025
Foley Viewpoints
Supreme Court Ends Circuit Split with Ruling That Plaintiffs Can Seek RICO Damages for Certain Personal Injury Claims
The U.S. Supreme Court has broadened plaintiffs’ ability to sue under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) for economic loss stemming from personal injury.
30 April 2025
Events
Tariff Blitz Webinar
Join us for a wide-ranging discussion of the Trump administration tariffs and how to risk plan for them.
17 April 2025
Tariff & International Trade Resource
The Non-Compliant Cat in the Hat
So, just before Easter, in 1957, a little book you may have heard of, called The Cat in the Hat, made its first appearance. Theodore Geisel — writing under the name “Dr. Suess” — later said that of all his children’s books, he was proudest of this one, because “it had something to do with the death of the Dick and Jane primers,” which he thought would bore any child to tears.