The Chartwell Chronicles: New Jersey Attorney Fees
Policyholders vs. Insurers: 3 Arguments to Make When Selecting Defense Counsel & Hourly Rates
Hinshaw Insurance Law TV: Recent Changes in Florida Property Insurance Law and How They Will Affect First Party Insurance
How to Secure Advances to Fund Legal Fees
Legislative Update: Cannabis, COVID-19, COMAR and More
Let's Talk About How Much It Costs To Get Divorced
Employment Law and Attorney Fees from the Employee Perspective | Jason Smith | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Let's Talk Retaining a Family Law Lawyer
The Dangers of Untimely Filings – What Employers Need to Know
THE PAPER CHASE
VIDEO: Are PA Workers Compensation Attorney Fees Now Taken from Medical Benefits Too?
What Should I Do If My Employer Failed to Pay Me Wages?
6 Key Takeaways | Ethics Developments in California
Meritas Capability Webinar - Controlling Where to Fight and Who Pays for it?
Who pays attorney fees in a divorce proceeding?
SEC Whistleblower Program: What Employers Need to Know
Bill on Bankruptcy: Lawyers Must Disclose What Clients Pay
Bill on Bankruptcy: Stockton May Win the Battle, Lose the War
LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, Appeal No. 2021-2348 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2024) - In a rare en banc opinion, the Federal Circuit overruled decades of prior precedent concerning the standard to...more
2020 was a tumultuous year. And while you were busy shifting to online meetings, implementing new measures to keep employees and customers safe, and otherwise adapting to the challenges created by the coronavirus, the U.S....more
In the second quarter of 2020, the Supreme Court decided five intellectual property focused cases in which it resolved a longstanding circuit split in Romag Fasteners and opened the door to the trademark registration of...more
As followers of this blog may recall, in December 2019, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split as to whether the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) may recover its “attorneys’ fees” (effectively, the pro...more
In Peters v. NantKwest, Inc., the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, held that the “all expenses of the proceedings” provision of a 35 U.S.C. § 145 civil appeal does not include the...more
On December 11, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the long-standing presumption that parties are responsible for their own attorney’s fees—holding that the “[a]ll expenses of the proceedings” provision of...more
After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its 13th annual list of top patent stories. For 2019, we identified fifteen stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe...more
In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is not entitled to recover its attorney’s fees in an appeal to a district court...more
In Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., the Supreme Court held that the Patent and Trademark Office cannot recover attorneys’ fees against an applicant in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 145. An unsuccessful applicant for a patent has...more
In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court in Peter v. NantKwest, case number 18-801, struck down the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) recent and often-criticized effort to recoup its legal fees – even in cases...more
On December 11, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) controversial policy of shifting attorneys’ fees in Peter v. NantKwest, Case No. 18-801. The Court ruled that the USPTO...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Peter v. Nantkwest, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-801 (Sup. Ct. Dec. 11, 2019) - This week the Supreme Court answered a long-simmering question concerning the extent to which a person who brings a...more
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent 9-0 decision in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., Case No. 18-801, informs strategic cost considerations in appeals challenging adverse decisions issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office...more
Under the so-called American Rule, litigants are normally expected to pay their own attorneys’ fees, win or lose, unless a statute clearly permits or requires fee-shifting. In the underlying litigation in Peter v. NantKwest,...more
On December 11, 2019, in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., 589 U.S. __ (2019), the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) cannot recover the salaries of its legal...more
The Supreme Court held that the PTO cannot collect attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 145, which requires challengers of PTAB decisions to pay all expenses of the proceedings....more
In a short opinion issued on December 11, 2019, the Supreme Court rejected the PTO’s recent attempt to collect attorneys’ fees under a little-used provision of the Patent Act. The decision in Peter v. NantKwest (No. 18-801)...more
The Supreme Court unanimously held that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) may not recover the salaries of its legal personnel as “expenses” in a civil action challenging an adverse decision by the PTO under...more
On December 11, the US Supreme Court held that the US Patent and Trademark Office is not entitled to recover its attorney’s fees in an appeal to the Eastern District of Virgina from an adverse decision of the Patent Trial and...more
On December 11, 2019, the US Supreme Court issued a unanimous order in Peter v. NantKwest, holding that a statute allowing the USPTO to recover "expenses" for appeals of patent refusals to a district court does not allow the...more
On December 11, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., No. 18-801, holding that Section 145 of the Patent Act does not require dissatisfied patent applicants who file a civil action in...more
A patent applicant dissatisfied with a decision by the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) has two options for review of that decision. Most commonly—by far—the applicant can appeal the decision to the U.S. Court...more
On March 4, 2019, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Iancu v. NantKwest, Inc., which will determine whether unsuccessful applicants before the United States Patent and Trademark Office who elect to challenge adverse decisions...more
This paper is based on reports on precedential patent cases decided by the Federal Circuit distributed by Peter Heuser on a weekly basis. ...more
Supreme Court: Status Quo in Cuozzo - Why it matters: On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee, where it rejected challenges to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes...more