IP News

In Figueroa v. United States, No. 05-5144, 2006 WL 2879028 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2006), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a decision of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims that a patent fee statute which generates revenue to fund federal programs other than the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office does not violate the U.S. Constitution. Michael Figueroa, an inventor, sued in August 2001 for a refund of fees that he contended was charged unlawfully. Specifically, he argued that excess fees violated article 1, section 8, clause 8 (the 'Patent Clause') and article 1, section 9, clause 4 (the 'Direct Tax Clause').

The Federal Circuit said the question was 'whether there is a rational relationship between the present level of patent fees and Congress's legitimate objectives under the Patent Clause.' Id. at *6. The court found that the fee structure had a rational basis for at least three reasons. First, it was rational for Congress to impose fees to fund the entire patent system. Second, Congress could have concluded rationally that increased patent fees were necessary to keep pace with the likely future costs of administering the patent system. Third, Congress could have rationally concluded that it was necessary to increase fees to deter the filing of certain types of patent applications.