Legal Opinion
Nantkwest, Inc. v. Matal
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided June 23, 2017No. 2016-1794PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge STOLL.
PROST, Chief Judge.
Nantkwest, Inc. appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granting-in-part and denying-in-part the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Director’s motion for fees. In its order, the district court granted the Director’s requested witness’ fees but denied the requested attorneys’ fees. The Director appeals the court’s denial of attorneys’ fees. We reverse.
I
In 2001, Dr. Hans Klingemann filed a patent application directed to a method of treating cancer by…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Williams v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd.Supreme Court of the United States · 2012
- Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLCSupreme Court of the United States · 2015
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Peter v. NantKwest, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2019
- Nantkwest, Inc. v. IancuCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2018
- Booking.com. B v. v. U.S. Patent & Trademark OfficeCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019
- Nantkwest, Inc. v. MatalCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2017
- Booking.com. B v. v. U.S. Patent & Trademark OfficeCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019