Peter v. NantKwest, Inc.

Last updated

Peter v. NantKwest, Inc.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 7, 2019
Decided December 11, 2019
Full case namePeter, Deputy Director, Patent and Trademark Office v. NantKwest, Inc.
Docket no. 18-801
Citations589 U.S. ( more )
140 S. Ct. 365; 205 L. Ed. 2d 304
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
Prior
  • Nankwest, Inc. v. Lee, 162 F. Supp. 3d 540 (E.D. Va. 2016);
  • Reversed in part sub nom.Nantkwest, Inc. v. Matal, 860 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
  • Rehearing en banc granted, opinion vacated, 869 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
  • On rehearing en banc sub nom.Nantkwest, Inc. v. Iancu, 898 F.3d 1177 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
  • Cert. granted, 139 S. Ct. 1292 (2019).
Holding
USPTO cannot recover the salaries of its legal personnel under section 145 of the Patent Act.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinion
MajoritySotomayor, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Section 145 of the Patent Act

Peter v. NantKwest Inc., 589 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2019 term.

Contents

In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) was not entitled to be reimbursed for attorney's fees from patent applicants, who file appeals against USPTO decisions. [1] [2] [3]

The case reinforced the application of the American rule, a default principle in United States law which states that, in a lawsuit, each party is responsible for paying its own attorney's fees, unless there is a legislative or contractual requirement that says otherwise. [4]

This case attracted attention from many intellectual property and law associations, many of whom (including the American Bar Association) filed friend-of-the-court briefs arguing against the government's request for attorney's fees from the plaintiff. [5] [6]

Case history

In December 2001, a doctor named Hans Klingemann filed a patent application for a new method of treating cancer using natural killer cells. The patent application concerned a method that used a specific cell line of natural killer cells called NK-92. [7] He then assigned the patent rights to NantKwest, Inc., [8] California-based immunotherapy firm that is a subsidiary of NantWorks.

In 2010, the USPTO issued a final denial of the patent, claiming that Klingemann's method was "obvious" and, thus, denied a patent on it. The patent examiners noted that medical researchers had, since the 1980s and 1990s, known that natural killer cells could combat cancer cells, and that Klingemann's patent application was insufficiently novel to receive a patent.

NantKwest appealed the decision internally to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (then known as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences), which is the internal USPTO administrative board that reviews decisions by USPTO's patent examiners. [9] The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences upheld the denial in 2013. [7] NantKwest decided to file its appeal in the District Court under section 145 of the Patent Act, which allows dissatisfied patent applicants to file their appeal in the Eastern District of Virginia, rather than the Federal Circuit (which normally hears appeals of decisions by government agencies). As a district court, the Eastern District of Virginia has original jurisdiction, which allows the litigants to introduce new evidence not considered by the Board of Patent Appeals. [4] [10] This is in contrast to the Federal Circuit, which as an appellate court can only consider evidence that was in the record reviewed by the Board of Patent Appeals. [10]

In lower courts

Trial in the Eastern District of Virginia

The Eastern District of Virginia heard the case in 2016. Prior to discovery, USPTO filed a motion for summary judgment (essentially arguing that the court had enough agreed-upon facts on the record to rule on the case immediately without conducting further proceedings). NantKwest responded to the motion, arguing, that it had additional evidence and that there were enough factual disputes left to warrant a full trial. The District Court granted USPTO's motion for summary judgment, ruling in favor of the agency, that NantKwest's patent claims were invalid due to obviousness. [11]

First appeal to the Federal Circuit

NantKwest appealed the District Court's decision again, this time to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision in a ruling issued in May 2017. [11]

Motion in the Eastern District of Virginia

Following the Federal Circuit's affirmation, USPTO then filed a motion for reimbursement in District Court of "the expenses of the proceedings", as permitted by section 145 of the Patent Act. Among those expenses were $78,592.50 of attorneys' fees, which were a pro rata allocation of the three USPTO employees (two attorneys and one paralegal) who worked on the case. [12] The USPTO's position was that the language of section 145, which stated that the applicant had to pay "All the expenses of the proceedings", entitled it to collect attorneys' fees. The District Court denied USPTO's motion, citing the American Rule. Under the District Court's interpretation of section 145, "all the expenses of the proceedings" simply referred to the expenses incurred in preparing for the case, such as printing documents, travel costs, and reasonable fees paid to expert witnesses. Without more explicit language in the law, the District Court found that USPTO could not collect attorney fees. [12]

Second appeal to the Federal Circuit

USPTO appealed the District Court's ruling to the Federal Circuit. The case was heard in 2017 by a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit, which included Chief Judge Sharon Prost as well as Judges Timothy B. Dyk and Kara Farnandez Stoll. In a 2-1 decision issued in June 2017, the Federal Circuit ruled in favor of USPTO. [13] Applying a precedent the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the panel ruled that "expenses of the proceeding" include a pro rata share of the salaries of USPTO employees who worked on the case. In her dissent, Judge Stoll argued that section 145 lacked the specificity needed to indicate that Congress had the intent to depart from the American Rule and allow for attorney fees to be awarded. [14] She argued that, at the time Congress enacted section 145, the ordinary meaning word "expenses" did not usually include attorney fees. She also noted that, in other laws, Congress explicitly uses the term 'attorney fees' and often distinguishes between "expenses" and "attorney fees". [14]

En banc rehearing by the Federal Circuit

On its own accord, the full Federal Circuit chose to rehear the case en banc—with all active judges on the panel participating (with the exception of Judge Raymond T. Chen, who recused himself since he was once an attorney for USPTO). [15] In a 7-4 opinion released in July 2018, the Federal Circuit reversed the three-judge panel's decision. [12] The court adopted a similar position to Judge Stoll's dissent, ruling that the language of section 145 was not specific enough to overcome the default American Rule or require, that the plaintiffs pay USPTO's attorney fees in addition to the other expenses of the trial. [14]

Appeal to the Supreme Court

USPTO appealed again, this time to the United States Supreme Court. In March 2019, the Supreme Court granted USPTO's writ of certiorari, agreeing to hear the case. [16] Morgan Chu, an intellectual property attorney, represented NantKwest before the Supreme Court. The USPTO was represented by the Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart. [17] The case was argued on October 7, 2019.

Supreme Court opinion

On December 11, 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of NantKwest. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor's opinion stated that the reference in section 145 to "expenses" did not include USPTO's in-house attorney fees. [4] The opinion noted that this was the first time in the history of section 145 that USPTO had requested reimbursement for attorney fees. [5] It also noted that Congress had explicitly included a reference to attorney fees in five other sections of the Patent Act, which meant that their decision not to include an explicit reference to it in section 145 was meant to intentionally exclude them from the definition of "expenses" eligible for reimbursement. [4]

Related Research Articles

Neither software nor computer programs are explicitly mentioned in statutory United States patent law. Patent law has changed to address new technologies, and decisions of the United States Supreme Court and United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) beginning in the latter part of the 20th century have sought to clarify the boundary between patent-eligible and patent-ineligible subject matter for a number of new technologies including computers and software. The first computer software case in the Supreme Court was Gottschalk v. Benson in 1972. Since then, the Supreme Court has decided about a half dozen cases touching on the patent eligibility of software-related inventions.

Business method patents are a class of patents which disclose and claim new methods of doing business. This includes new types of e-commerce, insurance, banking and tax compliance etc. Business method patents are a relatively new species of patent and there have been several reviews investigating the appropriateness of patenting business methods. Nonetheless, they have become important assets for both independent inventors and major corporations.

Leo D. Stoller is an American self-styled "intellectual property entrepreneur" based in suburban Chicago, Illinois. Stoller claimed rights to a large inventory of well-known trademarks and engaged in the assertive enforcement of those alleged trademark rights, threatening infringement action against people and companies who attempt to use similar marks.

The United States is considered to have the most favorable legal regime for inventors and patent owners in the world. Under United States law, a patent is a right granted to the inventor of a (1) process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, (2) that is new, useful, and non-obvious. A patent is the right to exclude others, for a limited time from profiting from a patented technology without the consent of the patent holder. Specifically, it is the right to exclude others from: making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing, inducing others to infringe, applying for an FDA approval, and/or offering a product specially adapted for practice of the patent.

The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) was an administrative law body of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) which decided issues of patentability. Under the America Invents Act, the BPAI was replaced with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), effective September 16, 2012.

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the issue of obviousness as applied to patent claims.

Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994), was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the standards governing awards of attorneys' fees in copyright cases. The Copyright Act of 1976 authorizes, but does not require, the court to award attorneys' fees to "the prevailing party" in a copyright action. In Fogerty, the Court held that such attorneys'-fees awards are discretionary, and that the same standards should be applied in the case of a prevailing plaintiff and a prevailing defendant.

Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a process claim directed to a numerical algorithm, as such, was not patentable because "the patent would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself." That would be tantamount to allowing a patent on an abstract idea, contrary to precedent dating back to the middle of the 19th century. The ruling stated "Direct attempts to patent programs have been rejected [and] indirect attempts to obtain patents and avoid the rejection ... have confused the issue further and should not be permitted." The case was argued on October 16, 1972, and was decided November 20, 1972.

Pro se legal representation means to argue on one's own behalf in a legal proceeding, as a defendant or plaintiff in civil cases, or a defendant in criminal cases, rather than have representation from counsel or an attorney.

Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a group of roughly 1.5 million women could not be certified as a valid class of plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit for employment discrimination against Walmart. Lead plaintiff Betty Dukes, a Walmart employee, and others alleged gender discrimination in pay and promotion policies and practices in Walmart stores.

Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 (1999), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that appeals from the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences are to be reviewed for whether the Board's conclusions are supported by "substantial evidence" under the APA.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is an administrative law body of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) which decides issues of patentability. It was formed on September 16, 2012, as one part of the America Invents Act. Prior to its formation, the main judicial body in the USPTO was the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI).

Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), was a 2014 United States Supreme Court decision about patent eligibility of business method patents. The issue in the case was whether certain patent claims for a computer-implemented, electronic escrow service covered abstract ideas, which would make the claims ineligible for patent protection. The patents were held to be invalid, because the claims were drawn to an abstract idea, and implementing those claims on a computer was not enough to transform that abstract idea into patentable subject matter.

Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545 (2014), is one of two U.S. Supreme Court decisions issued on April 29, 2014 regarding patent lawsuit fee-shifting. The Supreme Court essentially made it easier for courts to make the loser pay for all attorney costs if the lawsuit is regarded as frivolous. In other words, "the Supreme Court's decision grants judges more leeway to crack down on baseless claims."

Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013), was a Supreme Court case, which decided that "a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated.” However, as a "bizarre conciliatory prize" the Court allowed patenting of complementary DNA, which contains exactly the same protein-coding base pair sequence as the natural DNA, albeit with introns removed.

Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (2017) is a Supreme Court of the United States case that affirmed unanimously the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the provisions of the Lanham Act prohibiting registration of trademarks that may "disparage" persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols with the United States Patent and Trademark Office violated the First Amendment.

Olusegun Falana v. Kent State University and Alexander J. Seed, 669 F.3d 1349, was a notable case precedent in the United States patent law decided by United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 2012 that deals with the questions of inventorship and attorney's fee shifting in patent lawsuits.

<i>International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump</i>

International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 883 F. 3d 233, was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, upholding an injunction against enforcement of Proclamation No. 9645, titled "Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats", a presidential proclamation signed by President Donald Trump on September 24, 2017. The proclamation indefinitely suspends the entry into the U.S. of some or all immigrant and non-immigrant travelers from eight countries. It is a successor to Executive Order 13769, entitled "Protection of the Nation from Terrorist Entry into the United States," which were also enjoined by the District Court of Maryland and the Fourth Circuit in a case decided in 2017 by the same name of International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 857 F.3d 554.

Wilson v. Sellers, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning whether a federal court sitting in a habeas corpus proceeding should "look through" a summary ruling to review the last reasoned decision by a state court.

Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the inter partes review process granted by Congress to the United States Patent and Trademark Office for challenging the validity of patents, rather than a jury trial, is constitutional and did not violate either Article III of the Constitution nor the Seventh Amendment.

References

  1. ↑ Loh, Christopher (December 12, 2019). "Supreme Court Prohibits United States Patent and Trademark Office from Shifting Attorney's Fees in Certain District Court Proceedings". Venable LLP. Retrieved December 12, 2019.
  2. ↑ Lopez, Ian (October 11, 2019). "Patent Cases Need Broad Scope for High Court Invite, Lawyers Say". Bloomberg Law. Retrieved December 12, 2019.
  3. ↑ Nayak, Malathi (October 7, 2019). "Justices Ask Why PTO Waited So Long to Recoup Attorneys' Fees". Bloomberg Law. Retrieved December 12, 2019.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Mann, Ronald (December 11, 2019). "Opinion analysis: Court makes short work of easy case: Government cannot collect in-house attorney's fees from litigant challenging denial of patent application". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved December 12, 2019.
  5. 1 2 Brachmann, Steve (July 29, 2019). "Nantkwest Amici Urge SCOTUS Not to Shift Attorney's Fees in Section 145 Appeals". IP Watchdog. Retrieved December 12, 2019.
  6. ↑ Robert, Amanda (July 23, 2019). "In patent cases, imposing attorney fees will 'hamper equal access to justice,' ABA says". American Bar Association Journal. Retrieved December 12, 2019.
  7. 1 2 Wheelock, Bryan (May 20, 2019). "How a Patent Legal Fee Fight Could Disrupt the Robotics Industry". Robotics Business Review. Retrieved December 13, 2019.
  8. ↑ "nantkwest.com/patents/".
  9. ↑ "Appeals (Patent Trial and Appeal Board)". United States Patent and Trademark Office. Retrieved December 12, 2019.
  10. 1 2 Quillin, George; Hayssen, Molly (December 12, 2019). "American Rule Prevails; PTO May Not Collect In-House Attorneys' Fees as "Expenses"". The National Law Review Journal. Retrieved December 12, 2019.
  11. 1 2 Nantkwest Inc. v. Lee, Fed. Cir.2015-2095 (Federal Circuit2017-05-03).
  12. 1 2 3 Nantkwest, Inc. v. Iancu, 898F.3d1177 (Fed. Cir.2018).
  13. ↑ Nantkwest, Inc. v. Matal, 860F.3d1352 (Fed. Cir.2017).
  14. 1 2 3 Castanias, Greg (July 31, 2018). "Federal Circuit: "All the Expenses" Does Not Mean "Attorneys' Fees"". Jones Day LLP. Retrieved December 13, 2019.
  15. ↑ Nantkwest, Inc. v. Matal, 869F.3d1327 (Fed. Cir.2017).
  16. ↑ Howe, Amy (March 4, 2019). "Justices add patent-fees case to next term's docket". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved December 12, 2019.
  17. ↑ Mann, Ronald (October 7, 2019). "Argument analysis: Justices seem hesitant to award attorney's fees to government in litigation challenging denial of patent applications". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved December 13, 2019.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.