No. 18-1309

Booking.com B.V. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al.

Lower Court: Fourth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-04-16
Status: GVR
Type: Paid
Amici (4)Relisted (3) Experienced Counsel
Tags: administrative-law american-rule attorneys-fees civil-procedure civil-procedure-costs first-amendment government-fees government-litigation patent statutory-interpretation trademark trademark-registration
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw Antitrust FirstAmendment Patent Copyright Trademark JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2020-07-01 (distributed 3 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the presumption under the American Rule that 'each litigant pays his own attorneys' fees, win or lose, unless a statute or contract provides otherwise' apply to Section 1071(b)(3)?

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Applicants for trademark registration dissatisfied with a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board can commence a civil action seeking de novo review in a United States District Court. 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b)(8). 1. Does the presumption under the American Rule that “lelach litigant pays his own attorneys’ fees, win or lose, unless a statute or contract provides otherwise,” Baker Botts LLP v ASARCO LLC, 135 8.Ct 2158, 2164 (2015), apply to Section 1071(b)(3)? 2. Is the language “all expenses of the proceeding” sufficiently “specific and explicit” to demonstrate Congressional intent to depart from the American Rule? 3. Are fixed costs of the government attorneys that would have been paid irrespective of any specific litigation sufficiently “of the proceeding” to be encompassed by Section 1071(b)(3)? 4. Does requiring litigants seeking to vindicate their statutory rights under Section 1071 to pay the government’s attorneys’ fees, win or lose, infringe their rights under the First Amendment to i petition the government for redress of grievances? ii

Docket Entries

2020-08-03
JUDGMENT ISSUED.
2020-07-02
Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by New York Intellectual Property Law Association GRANTED.
2020-07-02
Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of <i>Peter</i> v. <i>NantKwest, Inc.</i>, 589 U. S. ___ (2019).
2020-06-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 7/1/2020.
2019-12-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/13/2019.
2019-06-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2019.
2019-05-30
Reply of petitioner Booking.com B.V. filed.
2019-05-16
Brief of respondents United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al. filed.
2019-05-16
Brief amicus curiae of The Association of Amicus Counsel filed.
2019-05-16
Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by New York Intellectual Property Law Association.
2019-05-10
Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association filed.
2019-04-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 16, 2019)

Attorneys

American Intellectual Property Law Association
Theodore H. Davis Jr.Kilpatrick & Cody, Amicus
Theodore H. Davis Jr.Kilpatrick & Cody, Amicus
Booking.com B.V.
Jonathan E. MoskinFoley & Lardner LL P, Petitioner
Jonathan E. MoskinFoley & Lardner LL P, Petitioner
New York Intellectual Property Law Association
Charles Robert MacedoAmster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP, Amicus
Charles Robert MacedoAmster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP, Amicus
The Association of Amicus Counsel
Charles E. MillerLeichtman Law PLLC, Amicus
Charles E. MillerLeichtman Law PLLC, Amicus
United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al.
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent