Nantkwest, Inc. v. Iancu
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
Stoll, Circuit Judge.
*1180 When the United States Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") affirms an examiner's rejection of a patent application, § 145 of the Patent Act permits the disappointed applicant to challenge the Board's decision in district court. Applicants who invoke § 145 are required by statute to pay "[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings" incurred by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") in defending the Board's decision, regardless of the outcome. Historically, the agency relied on this provision to recover sums it spent on travel and printing…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited57 opinions
- Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Russello v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2009
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Peter v. NantKwest, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2019
- Booking.com. B v. v. U.S. Patent & Trademark OfficeCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019
- Booking.com. B v. v. U.S. Patent & Trademark OfficeCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019
- Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. LG Electronics, Inc.District Court, E.D. Texas · 2020
- Dragon Intellectual Property LLC v. DISH Network LLCDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 2021
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.