Earlier this week, in Peter v. Nantkwest, Inc., Case
No. 18-801 the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held
that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the
"PTO") cannot recover the salaries of its legal personnel
as expenses under Section 145 of the Patent Act.
What, you might ask, is a post about a patent case doing on a
blog about trademarks?
Well, a similar issue has arisen in trademark cases, as we
blogged about
here. That post summarized Shammas v Focarino, decided
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit just a few
years ago. In Shammas, Mr. Shammas appealed the denial of
registration of his mark to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
(the "TTAB"), and when the TTAB affirmed the refusal, he
chose to initiate a de novo proceeding in district court
rather than appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit. The district court granted the PTO's motion for
summary judgment and the PTO moved for reimbursement of
