USPTO Issues Patent Fee Changes for 2025

By Andrew J. Morgan

In its final rule issued on November 20, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued changes to set or increase certain patent fees. The revised fees will take effect on January 19, 2025. There will not be a new fee for After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0 requests as was proposed, nor will […]

Increased Fees and Other Changes in USPTO Trademark Filings

By Christine Lebron-Dykeman

On November 18, 2024, the USPTO issued a final rule to increase certain trademark filing fees. The fees will take effect January 18, 2025.  While the per Class fee for filing a standard electronic trademark application has not changed and is still $350 per Class, the USPTO has eliminated the distinction between TEAS Standard and […]

The Verdict is In – Implications on the Supreme Court Ruling Regarding Attorney’s Fees

By Blog Staff

The United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled on December 11, 2019, that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) cannot demand repayment of attorney’s fees in district court proceedings brought under 35 U.S.C. § 145. For a summary of the arguments presented during oral arguments, see the author’s previous post here. The opinion written […]

Resolving Circuit Splits: Supreme Court Addresses Issues Regarding Legal Fees

By Blog Staff

On March 4, 2019, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Iancu v. NantKwest, Inc. to settle the debate over what “all the expenses” means under the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) win-or-lose attorney fee policy. This controversial policy involves seeking attorneys’ fees from applicants, regardless of the outcome of a case. During […]

Attorneys’ Fees included under “All the Expenses”

On June 23, 2017, the Federal Circuit released a decision allowing the USPTO to recover attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 145. According to § 145:                   “[a]n applicant dissatisfied with the decision of the [PTAB] . . . may, unless appeal has been taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the […]

Attorneys Granted Motion for Increased Fees in “Happy Birthday” Copyright Suit

Recently a California U.S. District Judge found that Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. did not hold a valid copyright on the song “Happy Birthday To You‚¬, and the song was held to be in the public domain. As part of the judgment, Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. was ordered to pay $14 million to reimburse members of the class […]

Supreme Court Issues Decision on Treble Damages

On the subject of willful infringement, 35 U.S.C. § 284 provides that, “[T]he court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.‚¬ On its face, the statute allows for broad discretion by the district courts, but the Federal Circuit set out a stricter standard for awarding of enhanced damages, as […]

Supreme Court Revisits Standard for Awarding Attorneys’ Fees in Copyright Cases

Earlier this week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments addressing the relevant standard for awarding attorneys’ fees in cases involving copyright law. The Court’s ruling, expected later this spring, will likely have a significant impact on copyright litigation cases. Section 505 of the Copyright Act provides that a district court “may”award a reasonable attorney’s fee […]

Supreme Court to Review Willful Infringement Standard in Light of Octane Fitness

In the 2014 case of Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness, the Supreme Court overruled Federal Circuit jurisprudence and provided a flexible framework for district courts to grant attorney’s fees in “exceptional cases”under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The Court reasoned that requiring a prevailing party to show “material inappropriate conduct”or that a case was […]

Octane Fitness in Practice: Federal Circuit Applies Supreme Court Attorney Fees Standard

The Supreme Court decision in Octane Fitness LLC v. ICON Health and Fitness (previously discussed on Filewrapper®) changed the standard for awarding attorney fees in patent suits to the prevailing party in exceptional cases under Section 258 of the patent statute. In Octane Fitness, the Court further defined “exceptional cases”to mean those “that stands out […]