A team of Foley attorneys including partner Jonathan Moskin, senior counsels Brian Kapatkin and Katherine Califa and associate Eoin Connolly are appealing to the Fourth Circuit a district court award of $76,000 in attorneys’ fees to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office stemming from a trademark dispute with the travel site Booking.com that the agency lost.
Both the Fourth Circuit and the Federal Circuit had previously issued panel rulings upholding the USPTO’s demand for attorneys’ fees after certain types of appeals, regardless of who wins the case. But on July 27, the full Federal Circuit reversed that court’s 2017 decision, ruling that the agency’s fee policy violates the so-called American Rule, which holds that the parties generally must pay their own legal fees.
The Foley team, in a July 31 filing, cited the Federal Circuit’s ruling in Booking.com’s appeal before the Fourth Circuit, according to Law360. While acknowledging that the Fourth Circuit is not bound by any Federal Circuit decision, it said the Fourth Circuit’s 2015 ruling in favor of the USPTO “cannot be squared” with U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
“The Federal Circuit in [its July 27 ruling] specifically analyzed the applicable precedent in this jurisdiction…in reaching its contrary conclusion,” the attorneys wrote. “Thus [the ruling] left no doubt as to the bases for the different outcomes.”
Both the Fourth Circuit and the Federal Circuit had previously issued panel rulings upholding the USPTO’s demand for attorneys’ fees after certain types of appeals, regardless of who wins the case. But on July 27, the full Federal Circuit reversed that court’s 2017 decision, ruling that the agency’s fee policy violates the so-called American Rule, which holds that the parties generally must pay their own legal fees.
The Foley team, in a July 31 filing, cited the Federal Circuit’s ruling in Booking.com’s appeal before the Fourth Circuit, according to Law360. While acknowledging that the Fourth Circuit is not bound by any Federal Circuit decision, it said the Fourth Circuit’s 2015 ruling in favor of the USPTO “cannot be squared” with U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
“The Federal Circuit in [its July 27 ruling] specifically analyzed the applicable precedent in this jurisdiction…in reaching its contrary conclusion,” the attorneys wrote. “Thus [the ruling] left no doubt as to the bases for the different outcomes.”
People
Related News
July 18, 2025
In the News
Matt Caplan Featured for Arrival to Foley – 'It's an exciting time'
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Matt Caplan is highlighted across press for his recent arrival to the firm's San Francisco office.
July 18, 2025
In the News
David Rosen on FDA's CRL Release – 'It hasn't happened in the past'
Foley & Lardner LLP partner David Rosen commented on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's decision to publish a package of complete response letters to pharmaceutical companies in the PharmaVoice article, "Why FDA’s CRL release could open the door to lawsuits against pharma."
July 18, 2025
In the News
Aaron Maguregui Highlights Potential Compliance Concerns in Pre-Tax Wellness Claims
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Aaron Maguregui commented in The New York Times article, "Hot Dogs for Insomnia? A Kennedy Aide's Start-Up Can Get You a Tax Break," sharing insight on the growing use of medical necessity letters to support tax-advantaged purchases of wellness products.