Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Section 145 of the U.S. Patent Act (35 U.S.C. §145) and §21(b) of the Lanham Act covering trademarks (15 U.S.C. §1071(b)) provide for two types of challenges from the decisions of the U.S. Patent and Trademark (USPTO) internal appeals boards — the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). Applicants in cases where there are no adverse third parties can bring a new civil case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia or the USPTO decision refusing to register a patent or trademark can be directly appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Further appeals from the district court's decisions are to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in trademark cases or to the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Parties in the district court action are allowed to submit new evidence not considered by the TTAB, but parties in direct appeals to the Federal Circuit are not.
In district court patent cases, §145 provides that “all the expenses of the proceedings shall be paid by the applicant.” In the district court trademark cases, §21(b) provides that “unless the court finds the expenses to be unreasonable, all the expenses of the proceeding shall be paid by the party bringing the case, whether the final decision is in favor of such party or not.” Neither statute defines “expenses.” Prior to 2013, the USPTO did not request reimbursement for the salaries of its attorneys and paralegals who worked on the case, only for more common costs, such as filing fees, photocopying expenses, and the like. However, starting in 2013, the USPTO has been requesting reimbursement for the time spent by its attorneys and paralegals on district court challenges to PTAB and TTAB decisions.
Fourth Circuit: USPTO Gets Expenses, Regardless of Outcome
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
As businesses across various industries increasingly adopt blockchain, it will become a critical source of discoverable electronically stored information. The potential benefits of blockchain for e-discovery and data preservation are substantial, making it an area of growing interest and importance.