In patent cases, imposing attorney fees will ‘hamper equal access to justice,’ ABA says

ABA Journal ^ | July 23 | Amanda Robert

[PghBaldy]

In an amicus brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, the ABA says: “Imposing governmental attorneys’ fees on patent applicants who choose civil actions under [the law] will hamper equal access to justice and chill the assertion of meritorious claims.”

The Supreme Court is considering in Peter v. NantKwest Inc. whether the phrase “all the expenses of the proceedings” in a provision of U.S. patent law includes expenses incurred by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office when its attorneys defend the office in litigation

[PghBaldy]

This is the one case being argued today that will probably get the least coverage.

[Scrambler Bob]

But it now has Two replies.

[tsomer]

Interested, but I have no idea what they’re talking about.

Are they saying that an applicant who challenges a decision in civil court must pay legal bills when the patent office is defendant? Is this the way it’s always been or was this instituted recently.

Help, I don’t speak lawyer.

[Diogenesis]

SCOTUS hates American inventors and always
lets the USPTO attorneys lie, lie, lie.

[BDParrish]

Please correct me.

There are idle lawyers everywhere searching, looking for more money to steal. This just says when you try to steal using the excuse of a patent infringement case as your excuse, then you don’t get as much.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Justice is neither speedy not free for most people, unless they are the supported by some grievance lawfare group. A small inventor never is.

[Mrs.Z]

A friend went through this.

Anyone with a drawing close enough can sue A REAL PATENT HOLDER for patent infringement.

My friend said that organized crime was behind his and many other suits.

Lawyers will of course be pushing for more opportunities to steal from honest businessmen.

[zeugma]

The transcript for oral arguments for this case can be found HERE