← All Authorities
United States Leading Case patents

Peter v NantKwest Inc

589 U.S. 87 (2019)
JurisdictionUnited States
CourtUS Supreme Court
Year2019
StatusBinding authority

Summary

The USPTO cannot recover its attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 145 because the American Rule requires specific statutory authority to shift fees, which § 145 does not provide.

Key Principle

patent; s 145 appeal expenses; PTO cannot recover attorney fees; American Rule applies absent specific statutory authority

Area of Law

ip

Related Cases

Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Modena Trading Pty Ltd (2014) 254 CLR 337

Foreign words used as trademarks are assessed for descriptiveness in the Australian English-speaking market; Italian words for coffee were registrable as not inherently descriptive.

Phonographic Performance Company of Australia Ltd v Commonwealth (2012) 246 CLR 561

Statutory licence scheme for sound recordings validly enacted under constitutional copyright power and did not constitute an unjust acquisition of property.

Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd (2012) 248 CLR 42

An ISP that failed to act on infringement notices did not authorise subscribers' copyright infringement via BitTorrent, as it lacked the requisite control over the infringing acts.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Peter v NantKwest Inc and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Peter v NantKwest Inc