Supreme Court holds that Section 145 does not permit the recovery of USPTO attorney fees under “expenses”

Peter v. NantKwest was decided by the Supreme Court on December 11, 2019 on appeal from the Eastern District of Virginia. The USPTO rejected Nantkwest’s patent application on obviousness grounds. The PTAB affirmed the rejection, and Nantkwest appealed to the district court under 35 U.S.C. § 145. After prevailing at the …

Liability reversed, mooting issues of damages, willfulness, and attorney fees

Cobalt Boats v. Brunswick is a nonprecedential case decided on May 31, 2019 on appeal from the Eastern District of Virginia. At trial, the jury defendant Brunswick willfully infringed, leading to a royalty award of $2,690,000. After trial, the district court enhanced the damages by a factor of 1.5 and awarded damages …

USPTO’s attorney fees do not fall within Section 145’s “expenses” after district court appeal

Nantkwest v. Iancu was decided en banc on July 27, 2018 on appeal from the Eastern District of Virginia. The USPTO rejected Nantkwest’s patent application on obviousness grounds. The PTAB affirmed the rejection, and Nantkwest appealed to the district court under 35 U.S.C. § 145. After prevailing at the district court, the …

No declaratory jurisdiction where invalidity issue would not resolve the underlying contractual dispute

AbbVie v. MedImmune was decided on February 5, 2018 on appeal from the Eastern District of Virginia. A 1995 agreement between the parties licensed AbbVie to practice the ‘516 patent, among others. AbbVie did not practice the patent at the time. Under the agreement, AbbVie was to pay royalties on the sales …

Section 145 requires applicant pay the USPTO’s attorney fees after district court appeal

Nantkwest v. Matal was decided on June 23, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Virginia. There, the USPTO rejected Nantkwest’s patent application on obviousness grounds. The PTAB affirmed the rejection, and Nantkwest appealed to the district court under 35 U.S.C. § 145. After prevailing at the district court, the USPTO …

Declaratory action OK despite that DJ-plaintiff didn’t sell or manufacture the product

Asia Vital v. Asetek was decided on September 8, 2016 on appeal from the Eastern District of Virginia. There, the district court dismissed Asia Vital’s declaratory judgment action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. After bringing suits against other competitors, Asetek sent Asia Vital a letter, accusing it of manufacturing an infringing …

Foreign suit doesn’t rebut laches presumption unless defendant knows of the subsequent US suit

Lismont v. Alexander Binzel was decided on February 16, 2016 on appeal from the Eastern District of Virginia. There, the district court granted summary judgment for Alexander Binzel, concluding that Lismont’s inventorship claim, which he filed in the US (in 2012) ten years after the patent issued, was barred by laches. Throughout …

Courts must apply the four-factor test before granting or denying a permanent injunction

eBay v. MerkExchange was decided by the Supreme Court on May 15, 2006 on appeal from the Eastern District of Virginia. Following a jury verdict of infringement, the district court denied plaintiff MerkExchange’s motion for a permanent injunction. The Federal Circuit reversed and ruled that MerkExchange was entitled to an injunction, applying …