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
15 April 2024
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Bump in the Road: Federal Judge Selectively Halts Enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in Texas
In a recent decision, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas suspended enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act with respect to public employers in the state.
15 April 2024
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
New Florida Law Highlights Renewed Interest in Child Labor
According to a February 2024 article from Working Economics Blog, “child labor remains a top issue in 2024 state legislative sessions amid soaring violations and widespread abuse of child labor laws in multiple sectors of the economy.”
15 April 2024
On Trial
The Art of Trial: On Trial with the Honorable Loretta A. Preska of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
In this episode of On Trial, host Christopher DeGennaro sits down with Senior U.S. District Judge Loretta A. Preska of the Southern District of New York.