Legal Opinion
Peter v. NantKwest, Inc.
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided December 11, 2019No. 18-801PublishedCited by 73 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Sotomayor
Section 145 of the Patent Act affords applicants "dissatisfied with the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" an opportunity to file a civil action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. 35 U.S.C. § 145 . The statute specifies that "[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings shall be paid by the applicant." Ibid. The question presented in this case is whether such "expenses" include the salaries of attorney and paralegal employees of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). We hold that they do not.
I
A
The Patent Act creates two mutually…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Ruckelshaus v. Sierra ClubSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- United States v. RodgersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 2010
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by73 opinions
- America Unites for Kids v. Sylvia RousseauCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2021
- Phoenix Entertainment Partners v. Dannette RumseyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2016
- Harry Calcutt III v. FDICCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2022
- Juan Castillo v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
- Craig Moskowitz v. American Savings BankCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2022
68 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.