Peter v. NantKwest
In brief
The Supreme Court upheld the ruling that the PTO cannot make a patent applicant pay its lawyers' and paralegals' salaries under 35 U.S.C. §145.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided · December 11, 2019 · Opinion by Justice Sotomayor
- What it’s about
- This case asked whether a patent applicant who sues the Patent and Trademark Office in federal district court after losing before the agency must also pay the PTO’s attorney and paralegal salaries as part of the proceeding’s expenses.
- Who it affects
- Patent applicants using this federal-court route do not have to cover the PTO's lawyer and paralegal salaries as case expenses. The decision says the law's phrase "all the expenses of the proceedings" does not include those salaries.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court held that the Patent Act does not let the PTO recover those legal personnel costs.
The case tested whether a broad cost rule in the Patent Act includes government employees' salaries when an applicant seeks federal-court review.
Question presented
Whether the phrase "[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings" in 35 U.S.C. 145 encompasses the personnel expenses the USPTO incurs when its employees, including attorneys, defend the agency in Section 145 litigation.
What the Court decided
Holding
The PTO cannot recover the salaries of its legal personnel under §145. 898 F. 3d 1177, affirmed.
- Result
- Affirmed
The vote
- Majority author
- Sonia Sotomayor
What's next
The Federal Circuit's ruling remains in place, and the Supreme Court's action in this case is complete.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Petition
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What did Peter v. NantKwest decide?
- The Supreme Court decided that the PTO cannot charge a patent applicant for its attorneys' and paralegals' salaries under 35 U.S.C. §145.
- What does Peter v. NantKwest mean for patent applicants?
- Applicants who bring these cases in federal district court do not have to cover those PTO salaries as case expenses.
- How did the justices vote in Peter v. NantKwest?
- The Court ruled unanimously, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion for the Court.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.