Careers

Diversity

With 17 offices, from New York to Los Angeles and Seattle to Orlando, we live and work in communities all over the U.S., collaborating across locations, disciplines and even borders. Our experienced, highly ranked lawyers serve businesses wherever they are and wherever they want to go.

Offices

About Us

Pages

Professionals

Thought leadership: blogs, podcasts, videos, publications, events and news

Insights

Services

Pro Bono

Am Law 100 firm with practices in Business, Digital Assets and Data Management, Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Litigation and Tax.

Home | BakerHostetler

Attorneys contribute representations and warranties chapter to healthcare contracts book

Civil price-fixing case may shed light on whether plaintiffs can win where the DOJ has lost

Four decades after AT&T was broken up, is Google headed down that dark road?

AD Nauseam

AD Nauseam: A Very Special AD Nauseam – Back to School

<img decoding="async" loading="lazy" class="alignright wp-image-5043" src="https://ipintelligencereport.bakerhostetlerblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2019/10/trademark_GettyImages-540832896_1200x630_72dpi.jpg" alt="" width="438" height="230" />
As followers of this blog <a href="https://www.ipintelligencereport.com/2019/12/13/can-the-uspto-recover-the-salaries-of-its-legal-personnel-in-challenges-to-adverse-decisions/">may recall</a>, in December 2019, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split as to whether the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) may recover its “attorneys’ fees” (effectively, the pro rata salaries of its legal personnel) in appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) to the U.S. District Court. The Fourth Circuit had held that the USPTO could recover such fees from trademark applicants who appealed, successfully or not, from the TTAB to the Eastern District of Virginia, while the Federal Circuit held the opposite with respect to patent applicants who appealed from the PTAB to the district court for de novo review.
Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Peter v. Nantkwest, the Fourth Circuit had followed its precedent and affirmed an award of attorneys’ fees to the USPTO in Booking.com B.V. v. USPTO, notwithstanding that Booking.com had prevailed in the district and appellate courts. The Supreme Court <a href="https://www.ipintelligencereport.com/2020/06/30/scotus-holds-that-generic-com-trademarks-like-booking-com-may-be-capable-of-registration/">recently ruled that the term “Booking.com” was capable of trademark significance</a> and therefore registrable, affirming the decisions below and, on July 2, remanding the case to the Fourth Circuit on the issue of the fee award.
Now, in view of the Nantkwest decision, which unanimously held that the USPTO is not entitled to recover attorneys’ fees in appeals under Section 145 of the Patent Act, and the Supreme Court’s remand of Booking.com on the fee issue, the Fourth Circuit will have the opportunity to do what it could not when the case was first before it – find that the USPTO is not entitled to recover the fees associated with defending the appeal. This remand should close the chapter on what was an interesting circuit split but ultimately an untenable deviation from the American Rule on attorneys’ fees in intellectual property cases.

core/freeform

IP Intelligence Report

Enterprise Issues

Intellectual Property

Trademark and Copyright

Booking.com Remand on USPTO Attorney Fee Issue Portends Closure on Circuit Split

Related Services

Featured Insights