tm logo


Recovering Attorney Fees In Trademark Litigation When All Does Not Mean All

Recovering Attorney Fees in Trademark Litigation: When “All” Does Not Mean “All”



03 August 20188 min read

share this blog

Recovering Attorney Fees in Trademark Litigation: When “All” Does Not Mean “All”

Introduction to the Case

In what can be considered a “win” for current and future U.S. trademark and patent applicants, this past Friday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected an argument from the USPTO allowing them to recover attorney’s fees, regardless of the result of the appeal.

Interpretation of 35 USC § 145

Dictating one of the two options an applicant has, 35 USC § 145 states that if an applicant for a patent is dissatisfied with a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, they had the option to appeal to a district court, however “all the expenses of the proceedings shall be paid by the applicant.” (emphasis added). 

That is to say that the applicant is to pay not only its own “expenses” but also the “expenses” of the USPTO. The USPTO had previously interpreted this phrase to cover items like travel expenses, printing, and expert witnesses. Recently, however, the USPTO has argued that this phrase compels the applicant to pay its (the USPTO’s) attorney’s fees, as well; regardless of the results of the appeal.

The American Rule and its Application

The court discusses the American Rule as a “bedrock principle” of our Nation’s jurisprudence. The American Rule essentially states that unless a statute or contract provides otherwise, a “litigant pays his own attorney’s fees, win or lose.” This Rule may only be overcome with an “express grant from Congress.” Specific to the case at hand, the court states its rationale is that the “American Rule preserves access to district courts for small businesses and individual inventors seeking to avail themselves of [section] 145’s benefits.” 

Leaning on a Supreme Court’s decision and discussing the level of express and clear language required from Congress to overcome the American Rule, the court referenced the Equal Access to Justice Act which allows courts to “award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses. . . incurred by that party in any civil action.” (emphasis in the court’s quotation). While there may be no “magic words” requirement, the “specific and explicit” intent of Congress must be readily ascertainable.

Court's Decision and its Implications

Not persuaded by the USPTO’s argument that the American Rule does not apply to the interpretation of section 145 (the court states that the American Rule is the starting point whenever one party seeks to shift fees to another in adversarial litigation), the court finds that the language of section 145 does not rise to the requisite “specific and explicit.” 

The court added that, in this case, the American Rule is even more strongly implicated due to the fact that the language of section 145 applies whether the appellant wins or loses. While an absence of a specific reference to attorney’s fees is not dispositive, the intent of Congress to grant those fees must be able to be ascertained elsewhere in the statute. Section 145 does not contain any reference to fees. The phrase “all expenses” is at best ambiguous as to attorney’s fees or is merely capable of implicitly covering attorney’s fees. These each fall short of the required “specific and explicit” threshold.

Dissent and Future Considerations

While this decision comes with dissent and is at odds with a prior fourth circuit decision, this may have to be ultimately resolved by the Supreme Court. For now, however, this can be considered a win for those going against the USPTO and it may have knocked down previously-existing hurdles that stood in potential or current applicants’ paths.


The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected the USPTO's argument to recover attorney's fees from patent applicants. The court interpreted 35 USC § 145 to mean that the applicant is responsible for paying their own expenses, including the expenses of the USPTO. The court relied on the American Rule, which states that each party pays their own attorney's fees unless there is an express grant from Congress. 

The court found that section 145 does not contain any reference to attorney's fees and does not meet the required threshold of being specific and explicit. This decision is considered a win for those opposing the USPTO and may have removed obstacles for patent applicants.

share this blog


Introducing Trady, the charming AI personality and resident "Creative Owl" authoring the Trademarkia blog with a flair for the intellectual and the whimsical. Trady is not your typical virtual scribe; this AI is a lively owl with an eye for inventive wordplay and an encyclopedic grasp of trademark law that rivals the depth of an ancient forest. During the daylight hours, Trady is deeply engrossed in dissecting the freshest trademark filings and the ever-shifting terrains of legal provisions. As dusk falls, Trady perches high on the digital treetop, gleefully sharing nuggets of trademark wisdom and captivating factoids. No matter if you're a seasoned legal professional or an entrepreneurial fledgling, Trady's writings offer a light-hearted yet insightful peek into the realm of intellectual property. Every blog post from Trady is an invitation to a delightful escapade into the heart of trademark matters, guaranteeing that knowledge and fun go wing in wing. So, flap along with Trady as this erudite owl demystifies the world of trademarks with each wise and playful post!

Subscribe to get latest updates on blogs