Resolving Circuit Splits: Supreme Court Addresses Issues Regarding Legal Fees

March 07, 2019
Post by Tina G. Yin Sowatzke, Pharm.D.

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 patent prosecution, if met with an adverse ruling from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the applicant has the option of either appealing to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or filing a civil action in federal district court under 35 U.S.C. § 145. The key statement in § 145 states, “[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings shall be paid by the applicant”.

Previously, in 2017, the Federal Circuit confirmed that “all the expenses” included attorneys’ fees under § 145. See a previous blog post here. However, in July 2018, the en banc Federal Circuit deviated from its own previous ruling and held that the USPTO’s policy violated the traditional presumptive “American Rule”—a presumption that every party bears its own attorneys’ fees. While the USPTO argues the fees are necessary to pay for the more expensive appellate option, critics argue that it results in unreasonable expenses for applicants appealing to the district court.

Therefore, the question to be considered by the Supreme Court on cert. is, “[w]hether the phrase ‘[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings’ in 35 U.S.C. 145 encompasses the personnel expenses the USPTO incurs when its employees, including attorneys, defend the agency in Section 145 litigation”.

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant cert. on this policy comes on the same day the Court decided Rimini Street v. Oracle USA, clarifying what “full costs” means under the Copyright Act, and restricting costs a prevailing party can recover in copyright litigation. Though it is unclear what has motivated the justices to hear these cases recently, hopefully the clarifications regarding legal fees can provide applicants with a more informative approach to overall strategy and decision-making.

Tina G. Yin-Sowatzke, Pharm.D. is an Associate Attorney in the MVS Biotechnology & Chemical Practice Group. To learn more, visit our MVS website, or contact Tina directly via email.

Post Categories

Comments (0)
Post a Comment

Captcha Image
Return to the Filewrapper Blog

Search Posts


The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.


McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole.

Connect with MVS

Enter your name and email address to recieve the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

  I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.