PTAB Appellants Must Pay USPTO’s Attorneys’ Fees Regardless of Outcome of Appeal

Nantkwest, Inc. v. Matal, No. 2016-1794,  (Fed. Cir. June 23, 2017) (Before Prost, C.J., Dyk, and Stoll, J.) (Opinion for the court, Prost, C.J.) (Dissenting opinion, Stoll, J.).

The Federal Circuit reversed the Eastern District of Virginia’s denial of the USPTO’s request for attorneys’ fees in connection with Nantkwest’s district court appeal of the PTAB rejection of its patent application. At issue was the correct interpretation of Section 145 of the Patent Act, namely the language “[a]ll of the expenses of the proceeding.” The Court held that Section 145 of the Patent Act requires the appellant to pay the USPTO’s attorneys’ fees, regardless of the outcome of the case.

The Court found support in legal dictionaries, treatises, and Supreme Court precedent to find that the ordinary meaning of “expenses” includes attorneys’ fees. See Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd., 132 S. Ct. 1997, 2006 (2012). The majority thus interpreted Section 145 to “specifically” and “explicitly” authorized attorneys’ fees, successfully overcoming the “American Rule” presumption against awarding attorneys’ fees. According to the majority, Taniguchi distinguished “costs” as a subset of “expenses,” which supports the finding that “expenses” could be read to include attorneys’ fees. The Court also noted that the USPTO’s use of salaried employees is more akin to “expenses” than traditional attorneys’ fees.

In dissent, Judge Stoll emphasized the importance of starting with the “strong presumption against fee-shifting” under the American Rule. According to Judge Stoll, Section 145 did not do enough to rebut that strong presumption, because Congress has shown the ability to award attorneys’ fees explicitly in other sections of the Patent Act. Contemporaneous dictionaries and legislation support the conclusion that attorneys’ fees were not part of the common meaning of “expenses” at the time of enactment. Also, the public policies behind the American Rule (e.g., protecting poor litigants) support excluding attorney’s fees.

Practitioners will need to counsel client’s on the costs and expenses of appealing a PTAB decision to the Eastern District of Virginia, which include that the appellant shall pay for the USPTO’s attorneys’ fees, regardless of the outcome of the appeal.

About Troutman Sanders and the Federal Circuit Review

Founded in 1897, Troutman Sanders LLP is an international law firm with more than 650 lawyers practicing in 16 offices located throughout the United States and Asia. Each week, partners Joe Robinson and Bob Schaffer, succinctly summarize the preceding week of Federal Circuit precedential patent opinions. They provide the pertinent facts, issues, and holdings. This Review allows you to keep abreast of the Federal Circuit’s activities – important for everyone concerned with intellectual property. IPWatchdog.com is pleased to publish these summaries each week.

The Author

Joseph Robinson

Joseph Robinson has over 20 years of experience in all aspects of intellectual property law. He focuses his practice in the pharmaceutical, life sciences, biotechnology, and medical device fields. His practice encompasses litigation, including Hatch-Waxman litigation; licensing; counseling; due diligence; and patent and trademark prosecution. He has served as litigation counsel in a variety of patent and trademark disputes in many different jurisdictions, and has also served as appellate counsel before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Joe also focuses on complex inter partes matters before the U.S Patent and Trademark Office, inventorship disputes, reexaminations and reissues. His experience includes numerous interferences, a particular advantage in new U.S. Patent and Trademark Office post-grant proceedings. He also counsels on patent–related U.S. Food and Drug Administration issues, including citizen petitions, Orange Book listing, and trademark issues. For more information and to contact Joe please visit his profile page at the Troutman Sanders website.

Joseph Robinson

Robert Schaffer is an intellectual property partner at Troutman Sanders. Bob applies more than 30 years of experience to IP counseling and litigation. His work includes patent procurement, strategic planning and transactional advice, due diligence investigations, district court patent cases, and Federal Circuit appeals. He regularly handles complex and high-profile domestic and international patent portfolios, intellectual property agreements and licensing, IP evaluations for collaborations, mergers, and acquisitions. In disputed court cases Bob’s work includes representing and counseling client in ANDA litigations, complex patent infringement cases and appeals, and multidistrict and international cases. In disputed Patent Office matters his work includes representing and counseling clients in interferences, reexaminations, reissues, post-grant proceedings, and in European Oppositions. For more information and to contact Bob please visit his profile page at the Troutman Sanders website.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 2 Comments comments.

  1. Joachim CS Martillo July 2, 2017 9:56 am

    Weren’t the wrong dictionaries and treaties consulted?

    The Court found support in legal dictionaries, treatises, and Supreme Court precedent to find that the ordinary meaning of “expenses” includes attorneys’ fees. See Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd., 132 S. Ct. 1997, 2006 (2012). The majority thus interpreted Section 145 to “specifically” and “explicitly” authorized attorneys’ fees, successfully overcoming the “American Rule” presumption against awarding attorneys’ fees. According to the majority, Taniguchi distinguished “costs” as a subset of “expenses,” which supports the finding that “expenses” could be read to include attorneys’ fees. The Court also noted that the USPTO’s use of salaried employees is more akin to “expenses” than traditional attorneys’ fees.

    I argue in Rigging the Patent System in Favor of Large Incumbent Corporations that because of the nature of the service that the USPTO provides and by GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles), the government attorneys represent a direct labor cost and not an expense under Accounts Payable as a technical expert would be treated, who prepared an expert report, was deposed, and testified in court.

  2. Michael Shore July 6, 2017 11:21 am

    This is ridiculous and another example of how big tech companies are literally trying to kill the US patent system because as dominant market players, they do not need patents. Patents allow small companies to compete against the “big guys” on innovation. Take patents away, and the only thing that favors small companies, their ability and agility to innovate and create, is gone. A dysfunctional patent system means we will have one big version of a few things instead of thousands of versions of everything.