Peter v. NantKwest, Inc.

Last updated
Peter v. NantKwest, Inc.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
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 legal 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 not worthy of being patented. 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 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

Admission to the bar in the United States

Admission to the bar in the United States is the granting of permission by a particular court system to a lawyer to practice law in the jurisdiction and before those courts. Each U.S. state and similar jurisdiction has its own court system and sets its own rules for bar admission, which can lead to different admission standards among states. In most cases, a person is "admitted" or "called" to the bar of the highest court in the jurisdiction and is thereby authorized to practice law in the jurisdiction. Federal courts, although often overlapping in admission standards with states, set their own requirements for practice in each of those courts.

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.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States federal appellate court

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is a United States court of appeals headquartered in Washington, D.C. The court was created by Congress with passage of the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982, which merged the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the appellate division of the United States Court of Claims, making the judges of the former courts into circuit judges. The Federal Circuit is particularly known for its decisions on patent law, as it is the only appellate-level court other than the Supreme Court with the jurisdiction to hear patent case appeals.

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.

Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, 546 U.S. 320 (2006), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving a facial challenge to New Hampshire's parental notification abortion law. The First Circuit had ruled that the law was unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement was proper. The Supreme Court vacated this judgment and remanded the case, but avoided a substantive ruling on the challenged law or a reconsideration of prior Supreme Court abortion precedent. Instead, the Court only addressed the issue of remedy, holding that invalidating a statute in its entirety "is not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief."

Patentable, statutory or patent-eligible subject matter is subject matter which is susceptible of patent protection. The laws or patent practices of many countries provide that certain subject-matter is excluded from patentability, even if the invention is novel and non-obvious. Together with criteria such as novelty, inventive step or nonobviousness, utility, and industrial applicability, which differ from country to country, the question of whether a particular subject matter is patentable is one of the substantive requirements for patentability.

An interlocutory appeal, in the law of civil procedure in the United States, occurs when a ruling by a trial court is appealed while other aspects of the case are still proceeding. Interlocutory appeals are allowed only under specific circumstances, which are laid down by the federal and the separate state courts.

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.

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.

Jerry Edwin Smith American judge

Jerry Edwin Smith is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Pro se legal representation comes from Latin pro se, meaning "for oneself" or "on behalf of themselves", which in modern law 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.

<i>Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services</i>

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services 682 F.3d 1 is a United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decision that affirmed the judgment of the District Court for the District of Massachusetts in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the section that defines the terms "marriage" as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." Both courts found DOMA to be unconstitutional, though for different reasons. The trial court held that DOMA violates the Tenth Amendment and Spending Clause. In a companion case, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, the same judge held that DOMA violates the Equal Protection Clause. On May 31, 2012, the First Circuit held the act violates the Equal Protection Clause, while federalism concerns affect the equal protection analysis, DOMA does not violate the Spending Clause or Tenth Amendment.

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.

Bowman v. Monsanto Co., 569 U.S. 278 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court patent decision in which the Court unanimously affirmed the decision of the Federal Circuit that the patent exhaustion doctrine does not permit a farmer to plant and grow saved, patented seeds without the patent owner's permission. The case arose after Vernon Hugh Bowman, an Indiana farmer, bought transgenic soybean crop seeds from a local grain elevator for his second crop of the season. Monsanto originally sold the seed from which these soybeans were grown to farmers under a limited use license that prohibited the farmer-buyer from using the seeds for more than a single season or from saving any seed produced from the crop for replanting. The farmers sold their soybean crops to the local grain elevator, from which Bowman then bought them. After Bowman replanted the crop seeds for his second harvest, Monsanto filed a lawsuit claiming that he infringed on their patents by replanting soybeans without a license. In response, Bowman argued that Monsanto's claims were barred under the doctrine of patent exhaustion, because all future generations of soybeans were embodied in the first generation that was originally sold.

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).

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." The decision is particularly relevant for the so-called patent trolls, which "will have to add a new variable to their calculations before pursuing a marginal lawsuit over their intellectual property: The other side’s legal fees." The decision was unanimous, with the opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013), was a case challenging the validity of gene patents in the United States, specifically challenging certain claims in issued patents owned or controlled by Myriad Genetics that cover isolated DNA sequences, methods to diagnose propensity to cancer by looking for mutated DNA sequences, and methods to identify drugs using isolated DNA sequences. Prior to the case, the U.S. Patent Office accepted patents on isolated DNA sequences as a composition of matter. Diagnostic claims were already under question through the In re Bilski and Mayo v. Prometheus cases. Drug screening claims were not seriously questioned prior to this case.

Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed unanimously the judgment of the 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.

<i>Falana v. Kent State Univ.</i>

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.

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 (2019-12-12). "Supreme Court Prohibits United States Patent and Trademark Office from Shifting Attorney's Fees in Certain District Court Proceedings". Venable LLP. Retrieved 2019-12-12.
  2. ↑ Lopez, Ian (2019-10-11). "Patent Cases Need Broad Scope for High Court Invite, Lawyers Say". Bloomberg Law. Retrieved 2019-12-12.
  3. ↑ Nayak, Malathi (2019-10-07). "Justices Ask Why PTO Waited So Long to Recoup Attorneys' Fees". Bloomberg Law. Retrieved 2019-12-12.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Mann, Ronald (2019-12-11). "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 2019-12-12.
  5. 1 2 Brachmann, Steve (2019-07-29). "Nantkwest Amici Urge SCOTUS Not to Shift Attorney's Fees in Section 145 Appeals". IP Watchdog. Retrieved 2019-12-12.
  6. ↑ Robert, Amanda (2019-07-23). "In patent cases, imposing attorney fees will 'hamper equal access to justice,' ABA says". American Bar Association Journal. Retrieved 2019-12-12.
  7. 1 2 Wheelock, Bryan (2019-05-20). "How a Patent Legal Fee Fight Could Disrupt the Robotics Industry". Robotics Business Review. Retrieved 2019-12-13.
  8. ↑ "nantkwest.com/patents/".
  9. ↑ "Appeals (Patent Trial and Appeal Board)". United States Patent and Trademark Office. Retrieved 2019-12-12.
  10. 1 2 Quillin, George; Hayssen, Molly (2019-12-12). "American Rule Prevails; PTO May Not Collect In-House Attorneys' Fees as "Expenses"". The National Law Review Journal. Retrieved 2019-12-12.
  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 (2018-07-31). "Federal Circuit: "All the Expenses" Does Not Mean "Attorneys' Fees"". Jones Day LLP. Retrieved 2019-12-13.
  15. ↑ Nantkwest, Inc. v. Matal, 869F.3d1327 (Fed. Cir.2017).
  16. ↑ Howe, Amy (2019-03-04). "Justices add patent-fees case to next term's docket". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved 2019-12-12.
  17. ↑ Mann, Ronald (2019-10-07). "Argument analysis: Justices seem hesitant to award attorney's fees to government in litigation challenging denial of patent applications". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved 2019-12-13.
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.