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 13, 2026
Foley Viewpoints
Recent IRS Guidance on Branch Profits Tax Treaty Benefits for Foreign Reverse Hybrid Entities
The IRS recently issued a Chief Counsel Advice Memorandum (AM 2025-002) (the CCA) that provides helpful guidance regarding the application of the branch profits tax (BPT) in connection with reverse foreign hybrid (RFH) entities and U.S. income tax treaties with foreign countries.
January 13, 2026
Foley Career Perspectives
Foley Attorneys Deepen Boys & Girls Clubs of America Partnership
As the first and only law firm to partner with BGCA on a national scale, Foley supports the organization's youth leadership development strategy through programs and initiatives that open doors for the next generation to thrive.
January 12, 2026
Energy Current
Ninth Circuit Hears Oral Argument in Challenge to California Climate Disclosure Laws SB 261 and SB 253; No Ruling Yet
On January 9, 2026, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument in a challenge to…