Legal Opinion

Shammas v. Focarino

District Court, E.D. Virginia

Decided January 3, 2014No. Case No. 1:12-cv-1462PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

T.S. ELLIS, III, District Judge.

At issue post-judgment in this 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b) action seeking review of a decision from the Patent and Trademark Office’s (“PTO”) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) are the following two questions:(1) whether the requirement in 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b)(3) that plaintiff must pay the PTO “all expenses of the proceeding” includes the salaries of the PTO attorneys and paralegals who worked on the case; and(2) whether the PTO’s claim for $11,436.15 for the effort expended by the PTO’s counsel in moving to strike supplemental new evidence…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2009
  4. Fox v. ViceSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
  5. Robinson v. Equifax Information Services, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2009

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Route Triple Seven Ltd. Partnership v. Total Hockey, Inc.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2015
  2. Milo Shammas v. Margaret FocarinoCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2015
  3. Humphreys & Partners Architects, L.P. v. Lessard Design, Inc.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2015
  4. Shammas v. LeeDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2016
  5. Realvirt, LLC v. LeeDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2016

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API