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
January 2, 2026
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
Federal Court Denies Claim that Franchisor Is a Joint Employer with Franchisee
A federal court recently dismissed employment discrimination claims against a franchisor asserted by its franchisees’ employee after…
December 29, 2025
Tariff & International Trade Resource
Mexican January 2026 Tariff Tsunami: Maquilas Aren’t Immune
On January 1, 2026, Mexico will increase its general import tariff rate (known as the most favored nation (MFN) rate). The increase will be in the range of five to fifty percent, impacting 1,463 eight-digit tariff lines encompassing thousands of products originating in countries with which Mexico does not have a free trade agreement (FTA or the measure).
December 24, 2025
Health Care Law Today
Gender-Affirming Care: Multi‑State Lawsuit Challenges HHS Declaration
As previously discussed in Foley’s healthcarelawtoday, on December 18, 2025, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) held a press conference focused on what it defined as “sex rejection procedures” (SRPs), also known as gender-affirming care (GAC) for minors, and outlined next steps.