557:'s opinion stated that the reference in section 145 to "expenses" did not include USPTO's in-house attorney fees. The opinion noted that this was the first time in the history of section 145 that USPTO had requested reimbursement for attorney fees. It also noted that Congress had explicitly included a reference to attorney fees in five other sections of the Patent Act, which meant that their decision not to include an explicit reference to it in section 145 was meant to intentionally exclude them from the definition of "expenses" eligible for reimbursement.
34:
441:(essentially arguing that the court had enough agreed-upon facts on the record to rule on the case immediately without conducting further proceedings). NantKwest responded to the motion, arguing, that it had additional evidence and that there were enough factual disputes left to warrant a full trial. The District Court granted USPTO's motion for summary judgment, ruling in favor of the agency, that NantKwest's patent claims were invalid due to obviousness.
517:, who recused himself since he was once an attorney for USPTO). In a 7-4 opinion released in July 2018, the Federal Circuit reversed the three-judge panel's decision. The court adopted a similar position to Judge Stoll's dissent, ruling that the language of section 145 was not specific enough to overcome the default American Rule or require, that the plaintiffs pay USPTO's attorney fees in addition to the other expenses of the trial.
465:
denied USPTO's motion, citing the
American Rule. Under the District Court's interpretation of section 145, "all the expenses of the proceedings" simply referred to the expenses incurred in preparing for the case, such as printing documents, travel costs, and reasonable fees paid to expert witnesses. Without more explicit language in the law, the District Court found that USPTO could not collect attorney fees.
497:
to depart from the
American Rule and allow for attorney fees to be awarded. She argued that, at the time Congress enacted section 145, the ordinary meaning word "expenses" did not usually include attorney fees. She also noted that, in other laws, Congress explicitly uses the term 'attorney fees' and
464:
allocation of the three USPTO employees (two attorneys and one paralegal) who worked on the case. The USPTO's position was that the language of section 145, which stated that the applicant had to pay "All the expenses of the proceedings", entitled it to collect attorneys' fees. The
District Court
420:, which allows the litigants to introduce new evidence not considered by the Board of Patent Appeals. This is in contrast to the Federal Circuit, which as an appellate court can only consider evidence that was in the record reviewed by the Board of Patent Appeals.
380:
and, thus, denied a patent on it. The patent examiners noted that medical researchers had, since the 1980s and 1990s, known that natural killer cells could combat cancer cells, and that
Klingemann's patent application was insufficiently novel to receive a patent.
457:
Following the
Federal Circuit's affirmation, USPTO then filed a motion for reimbursement in District Court of "the expenses of the proceedings", as permitted by section 145 of the Patent Act. Among those expenses were $ 78,592.50 of attorneys' fees, which were a
660:
409:
401:
975:
1070:
313:
493:
share of the salaries of USPTO employees who worked on the case. In her dissent, Judge Stoll argued that section 145 lacked the specificity needed to indicate that
Congress had the
449:
NantKwest appealed the
District Court's decision again, this time to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision in a ruling issued in May 2017.
413:
1008:
486:
82:
338:
law which states that, in a lawsuit, each party is responsible for paying its own attorney's fees, unless there is a legislative or contractual requirement that says otherwise.
1055:
1060:
473:
USPTO appealed the
District Court's ruling to the Federal Circuit. The case was heard in 2017 by a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit, which included Chief Judge
661:"Opinion analysis: Court makes short work of easy case: Government cannot collect in-house attorney's fees from litigant challenging denial of patent application"
715:
627:
1065:
389:
320:
1075:
689:
812:
744:
976:"Argument analysis: Justices seem hesitant to award attorney's fees to government in litigation challenging denial of patent applications"
601:
576:"Supreme Court Prohibits United States Patent and Trademark Office from Shifting Attorney's Fees in Certain District Court Proceedings"
526:
377:
331:
38:
905:
542:
416:(which normally hears appeals of decisions by government agencies). As a district court, the Eastern District of Virginia has
385:
949:
400:. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences upheld the denial in 2013. NantKwest decided to file its appeal in the
575:
357:
In
December 2001, a doctor named Hans Klingemann filed a patent application for a new method of treating cancer using
309:
341:
This case attracted attention from many intellectual property and law associations, many of whom (including the
485:. In a 2-1 decision issued in June 2017, the Federal Circuit ruled in favor of USPTO. Applying a precedent the
393:
342:
553:
On
December 11, 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of NantKwest. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice
361:. The patent application concerned a method that used a specific cell line of natural killer cells called
66:
1012:
538:
417:
77:
482:
358:
229:
530:
494:
295:
1037:
376:
In 2010, the USPTO issued a final denial of the patent, claiming that Klingemann's method was
101:
198:
USPTO cannot recover the salaries of its legal personnel under section 145 of the Patent Act.
438:
541:
attorney, represented NantKwest before the Supreme Court. The USPTO was represented by the
554:
514:
434:
397:
265:
245:
221:
1019:
716:"In patent cases, imposing attorney fees will 'hamper equal access to justice,' ABA says"
349:
briefs arguing against the government's request for attorney's fees from the plaintiff.
783:
478:
233:
1049:
845:
346:
335:
324:
813:"American Rule Prevails; PTO May Not Collect In-House Attorneys' Fees as "Expenses""
125:
935:
886:
868:
474:
257:
241:
213:
177:
163:
146:
690:"Nantkwest Amici Urge SCOTUS Not to Shift Attorney's Fees in Section 145 Appeals"
513:—with all active judges on the panel participating (with the exception of Judge
253:
122:
534:
506:
405:
366:
183:
370:
150:
89:
408:, which allows dissatisfied patent applicants to file their appeal in the
1028:
460:
129:
510:
158:
57:
Peter, Deputy Director, Patent and Trademark Office v. NantKwest, Inc.
906:"Federal Circuit: "All the Expenses" Does Not Mean "Attorneys' Fees""
745:"How a Patent Legal Fee Fight Could Disrupt the Robotics Industry"
602:"Patent Cases Need Broad Scope for High Court Invite, Lawyers Say"
433:
The Eastern District of Virginia heard the case in 2016. Prior to
362:
327:
from patent applicants, who file appeals against USPTO decisions.
769:
143:
628:"Justices Ask Why PTO Waited So Long to Recoup Attorneys' Fees"
33:
489:, the panel ruled that "expenses of the proceeding" include a
498:
often distinguishes between "expenses" and "attorney fees".
545:
Malcolm Stewart. The case was argued on October 7, 2019.
365:. He then assigned the patent rights to NantKwest, Inc.,
319:
In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that the
1071:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court
950:"Justices add patent-fees case to next term's docket"
811:
Quillin, George; Hayssen, Molly (December 12, 2019).
487:
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
509:, the full Federal Circuit chose to rehear the case
529:. In March 2019, the Supreme Court granted USPTO's
289:
278:
273:
202:
192:
112:
107:
97:
72:
62:
52:
45:
26:
384:NantKwest appealed the decision internally to the
369:-based immunotherapy firm that is a subsidiary of
654:
652:
650:
648:
323:(USPTO) was not entitled to be reimbursed for
8:
806:
804:
683:
681:
1056:United States Supreme Court patent case law
899:
897:
895:
330:The case reinforced the application of the
738:
736:
453:Motion in the Eastern District of Virginia
23:
1061:United States Patent and Trademark Office
788:United States Patent and Trademark Office
784:"Appeals (Patent Trial and Appeal Board)"
429:Trial in the Eastern District of Virginia
390:Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
321:United States Patent and Trademark Office
858:
856:
854:
502:En banc rehearing by the Federal Circuit
16:2019 United States Supreme Court opinion
566:
525:USPTO appealed again, this time to the
848: (Federal Circuit 2017-05-03).
835:
833:
574:Loh, Christopher (December 12, 2019).
21:2019 United States Supreme Court case
7:
469:Second appeal to the Federal Circuit
445:First appeal to the Federal Circuit
162:granted, opinion vacated, 869 F.3d
688:Brachmann, Steve (July 29, 2019).
659:Mann, Ronald (December 11, 2019).
626:Nayak, Malathi (October 7, 2019).
396:that reviews decisions by USPTO's
186:. granted, 139 S. Ct. 1292 (2019).
39:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
1066:United States Supreme Court cases
1015:___ (2019) is available from:
904:Castanias, Greg (July 31, 2018).
974:Mann, Ronald (October 7, 2019).
743:Wheelock, Bryan (May 20, 2019).
720:American Bar Association Journal
714:Robert, Amanda (July 23, 2019).
32:
817:The National Law Review Journal
600:Lopez, Ian (October 11, 2019).
392:), which is the internal USPTO
1076:2019 in United States case law
1:
533:, agreeing to hear the case.
386:Patent Trial and Appeal Board
308:, 589 U.S. ___ (2019), was a
296:Section 145 of the Patent Act
1038:Supreme Court (slip opinion)
846: Fed. Cir. 2015-2095
410:Eastern District of Virginia
948:Howe, Amy (March 4, 2019).
527:United States Supreme Court
521:Appeal to the Supreme Court
437:, USPTO filed a motion for
310:United States Supreme Court
1092:
1029:Oyez (oral argument audio)
938: (Fed. Cir. 2017).
889: (Fed. Cir. 2017).
871: (Fed. Cir. 2018).
404:under section 145 of the
334:, a default principle in
294:
207:
197:
48:Decided December 11, 2019
31:
931:Nantkwest, Inc. v. Matal
882:Nantkwest, Inc. v. Matal
864:Nantkwest, Inc. v. Iancu
770:"nantkwest.com/patents/"
749:Robotics Business Review
543:Deputy Solicitor General
343:American Bar Association
174:Nantkwest, Inc. v. Iancu
140:Nantkwest, Inc. v. Matal
27:Peter v. NantKwest, Inc.
305:Peter v. NantKwest Inc.
46:Argued October 7, 2019
936:869 F.3d 1327
887:860 F.3d 1352
869:898 F.3d 1177
841:Nantkwest Inc. v. Lee
549:Supreme Court opinion
539:intellectual property
418:original jurisdiction
282:Sotomayor, joined by
169:On rehearing en banc
119:Nankwest, Inc. v. Lee
483:Kara Farnandez Stoll
394:administrative board
359:natural killer cells
102:Opinion announcement
98:Opinion announcement
88:140 S. Ct. 365; 205
388:(then known as the
347:friend-of-the-court
230:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
1005:Peter v. NantKwest
531:writ of certiorari
477:as well as Judges
412:, rather than the
218:Associate Justices
507:On its own accord
314:October 2019 term
301:
300:
180:(Fed. Cir. 2018);
166:(Fed. Cir. 2017);
135:Reversed in part
1083:
1042:
1036:
1033:
1027:
1024:
1018:
991:
990:
988:
986:
971:
965:
964:
962:
960:
945:
939:
933:
927:
921:
920:
918:
916:
901:
890:
884:
878:
872:
866:
860:
849:
843:
837:
828:
827:
825:
823:
808:
799:
798:
796:
794:
780:
774:
773:
766:
760:
759:
757:
755:
740:
731:
730:
728:
726:
711:
705:
704:
702:
700:
685:
676:
675:
673:
671:
656:
643:
642:
640:
638:
623:
617:
616:
614:
612:
597:
591:
590:
588:
586:
571:
439:summary judgment
398:patent examiners
203:Court membership
36:
35:
24:
1091:
1090:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1046:
1045:
1040:
1034:
1031:
1025:
1022:
1016:
1000:
995:
994:
984:
982:
973:
972:
968:
958:
956:
947:
946:
942:
929:
928:
924:
914:
912:
903:
902:
893:
880:
879:
875:
862:
861:
852:
839:
838:
831:
821:
819:
810:
809:
802:
792:
790:
782:
781:
777:
768:
767:
763:
753:
751:
742:
741:
734:
724:
722:
713:
712:
708:
698:
696:
687:
686:
679:
669:
667:
658:
657:
646:
636:
634:
625:
624:
620:
610:
608:
599:
598:
594:
584:
582:
573:
572:
568:
563:
555:Sonia Sotomayor
551:
523:
515:Raymond T. Chen
504:
471:
455:
447:
431:
426:
424:In lower courts
414:Federal Circuit
355:
325:attorney's fees
266:Brett Kavanaugh
256:
246:Sonia Sotomayor
244:
232:
222:Clarence Thomas
93:
47:
41:
22:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1089:
1087:
1079:
1078:
1073:
1068:
1063:
1058:
1048:
1047:
1044:
1043:
999:
998:External links
996:
993:
992:
966:
940:
922:
891:
873:
850:
829:
800:
775:
761:
732:
706:
677:
644:
618:
592:
565:
564:
562:
559:
550:
547:
522:
519:
503:
500:
479:Timothy B. Dyk
470:
467:
454:
451:
446:
443:
430:
427:
425:
422:
402:District Court
354:
351:
312:case from the
299:
298:
292:
291:
287:
286:
280:
276:
275:
271:
270:
269:
268:
234:Stephen Breyer
219:
216:
211:
205:
204:
200:
199:
195:
194:
190:
189:
188:
187:
181:
167:
154:
133:
114:
110:
109:
105:
104:
99:
95:
94:
87:
74:
70:
69:
64:
60:
59:
54:
53:Full case name
50:
49:
43:
42:
37:
29:
28:
20:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1088:
1077:
1074:
1072:
1069:
1067:
1064:
1062:
1059:
1057:
1054:
1053:
1051:
1039:
1030:
1021:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1002:
1001:
997:
981:
977:
970:
967:
955:
951:
944:
941:
937:
932:
926:
923:
911:
910:Jones Day LLP
907:
900:
898:
896:
892:
888:
883:
877:
874:
870:
865:
859:
857:
855:
851:
847:
842:
836:
834:
830:
818:
814:
807:
805:
801:
789:
785:
779:
776:
771:
765:
762:
750:
746:
739:
737:
733:
721:
717:
710:
707:
695:
691:
684:
682:
678:
666:
662:
655:
653:
651:
649:
645:
633:
632:Bloomberg Law
629:
622:
619:
607:
606:Bloomberg Law
603:
596:
593:
581:
577:
570:
567:
560:
558:
556:
548:
546:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
520:
518:
516:
512:
508:
501:
499:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
468:
466:
463:
462:
452:
450:
444:
442:
440:
436:
428:
423:
421:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
391:
387:
382:
379:
374:
372:
368:
364:
360:
352:
350:
348:
344:
339:
337:
336:United States
333:
332:American rule
328:
326:
322:
317:
315:
311:
307:
306:
297:
293:
288:
285:
281:
277:
272:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
220:
217:
215:
212:
210:Chief Justice
209:
208:
206:
201:
196:
191:
185:
182:
179:
175:
172:
168:
165:
161:
160:
155:
152:
148:
145:
141:
138:
134:
131:
127:
124:
120:
117:
116:
115:
111:
106:
103:
100:
96:
91:
85:
84:
79:
75:
71:
68:
65:
61:
58:
55:
51:
44:
40:
30:
25:
19:
1004:
985:December 13,
983:. Retrieved
979:
969:
959:December 12,
957:. Retrieved
953:
943:
930:
925:
915:December 13,
913:. Retrieved
909:
881:
876:
863:
840:
822:December 12,
820:. Retrieved
816:
793:December 12,
791:. Retrieved
787:
778:
764:
754:December 13,
752:. Retrieved
748:
725:December 12,
723:. Retrieved
719:
709:
699:December 12,
697:. Retrieved
693:
670:December 12,
668:. Retrieved
664:
637:December 12,
635:. Retrieved
631:
621:
611:December 12,
609:. Retrieved
605:
595:
585:December 12,
583:. Retrieved
579:
569:
552:
524:
505:
490:
475:Sharon Prost
472:
459:
456:
448:
432:
383:
375:
356:
353:Case history
340:
329:
318:
304:
303:
302:
290:Laws applied
283:
274:Case opinion
261:
258:Neil Gorsuch
249:
242:Samuel Alito
237:
225:
214:John Roberts
173:
170:
157:
139:
136:
118:
108:Case history
81:
56:
18:
694:IP Watchdog
580:Venable LLP
254:Elena Kagan
176:, 898 F.3d
123:F. Supp. 3d
1050:Categories
980:SCOTUSBlog
954:SCOTUSBlog
665:SCOTUSBlog
561:References
535:Morgan Chu
406:Patent Act
367:California
156:Rehearing
63:Docket no.
435:discovery
378:"obvious"
371:NantWorks
284:unanimous
151:Fed. Cir.
90:L. Ed. 2d
73:Citations
1003:Text of
491:pro rata
461:pro rata
345:) filed
279:Majority
171:sub nom.
137:sub nom.
130:E.D. Va.
511:en banc
193:Holding
159:en banc
1041:
1035:
1032:
1026:
1023:
1020:Justia
1017:
934:,
885:,
867:,
844:,
495:intent
264:
262:·
260:
252:
250:·
248:
240:
238:·
236:
228:
226:·
224:
153:2017);
142:, 860
132:2016);
121:, 162
67:18-801
1011:
537:, an
363:NK-92
113:Prior
1013:U.S.
1009:589
987:2019
961:2019
917:2019
824:2019
795:2019
756:2019
727:2019
701:2019
672:2019
639:2019
613:2019
587:2019
481:and
184:Cert
178:1177
164:1327
147:1352
144:F.3d
83:more
78:U.S.
76:589
126:540
92:304
1052::
1007:,
978:.
952:.
908:.
894:^
853:^
832:^
815:.
803:^
786:.
747:.
735:^
718:.
692:.
680:^
663:.
647:^
630:.
604:.
578:.
373:.
316:.
989:.
963:.
919:.
826:.
797:.
772:.
758:.
729:.
703:.
674:.
641:.
615:.
589:.
149:(
128:(
86:)
80:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.