Skip to content

  • Patent Blog
  • Jobs

  • logo

  • Ethics
  • Journal

America's leading patent law source

Using 35 USC 285 to Impose Fees on Patentee’s Counsel

January 20, 2015EthicsAffirmed Without Opinion, Claim Construction, Damages, Licenses, paidDavid

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Login

About David

Professor of Law, Mercer University School of Law. Formerly Of Counsel, Taylor English Duma, LLP and in 2012-13, judicial clerk to Chief Judge Rader. View all posts by David →

Post navigation

← Teva v. Sandoz: Partial Deference in Claim Construction Giving Deference to the Supreme Court in Teva v. Sandoz →

Author

David Hricik
Professor, Mercer University School of Law
Of Counsel, Taylor English Duma LLP
SSRN Articles

Patently-O Tools

NEW: Patently-O Paid Membership
Join thousands of patent law professionals

Manage your Account
Reset your password, Manage Subscriptions, Force logout.

Free Daily E-Mail
About 25,000 individuals now receive Patently-O via e-mail each morning.

Find a patent job
We regularly post top patent jobs from leading firms, corporations, and government and educational institutions.

Submit a patent job
Find a patent professional among the 15,000+ monthly visitors of the job board, many of whom are patent professionals at large firms and corporations.

Request a Free Membership
Students, professors, judges and their clerks, and folks making <$75k annual income all qualify.

Categories

Recent Ethics Posts

  • Rader on 101 and the Statutory Text
  • Law School Casebook Review: Patent Law Fundamentals (Brean & Snow) 2d Ed
  • PTAB Finds Patentee Breached Duty of Candor During IPR But in Doing So Conflates Rule 56 and IPR Candor Rules
  • The Split on Pleading Scienter for Inequitable Conduct
  • An Opinion on Chief Judge Moore’s Reported Unprecedented Effort to Remove Judge Newman
  • Update on the Akin Gump v. Xcential case
  • Interesting Opinion About the Ethics of Giving an Opinion of Counsel to One Client About Another Client’s Patent
  • Akin Gump Files Petition to Institute Derivation Against Former Vendor Alleging Its Lawyer’s “Idea” was Stolen
  • The Mandamus Transfer Battle and W.D. Texas: Why is the Federal Circuit, or Anyone, Hearing the Petitions?
  • Thoughtful Decision on Whether LLCs are Treated as Corporations for Purposes of General Personal Jurisdiction

Popular Tags

Abstract Idea Affirmed Without Opinion ai AIA Trials anticipation Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Claim Construction Copyright Damages design patent double patenting DTSA Enablement en banc Federal Circuit Federal Circuit En Banc First to Invent Historical Cases Inequitable Conduct inventorship IPR Licenses Marking motivation to combine obviousness Oil States paid patent eligibility patent infringement patent law patent litigation patent prosecution Personal Jurisdiction PGR Printed Publication reasonable expectation of success Section 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Supreme Court Trademark Trade Secrets USPTO USPTO Director Venue Written Description

Archives

Contact Us

  • E-mail Dennis Crouch
  • E-mail Patently-O Jobs
  • Submit a Job Listing