Peter v. NantKwest, Inc.

The case asked whether a patent applicant who sues the Patent and Trademark Office after losing at the agency must also pay the agency's attorney and paralegal salaries. The Supreme Court said the Patent Act does not allow the PTO to recover those legal personnel costs.

The Court said the Patent Act does not let the PTO recover attorney and paralegal salaries in Section 145 litigation. The vote breakdown and opinion lineup are not provided here.

This limits how expensive this kind of patent challenge can become for applicants who choose to go to federal district court. For example, an inventor fighting a PTO loss does not have to cover the salaries of the government's lawyers and paralegals in addition to other case costs.

The Supreme Court has finished this case. The practical result is that Section 145 applicants remain responsible for ordinary expenses, but not the PTO's attorney and paralegal salaries.

The dispute was over the meaning of "all the expenses of the proceedings" in the Patent Act. The PTO said that phrase included its lawyers' and paralegals' salaries, but the Court disagreed.

Patent applicants who challenge a PTO loss in federal district court are affected most directly. The decision reduces the risk that they will face a much larger bill from the government's legal staffing costs.

The Court's work on this docket is over. Going forward, lower courts and the PTO must apply the rule that these legal personnel salaries are not recoverable in Section 145 cases.