Making his first appearance before the Supreme Court, Irell's Morgan Chu argues that a provision referring to "expenses" isn't specific enough to force patent owners to pay the PTO's in-house attorneys fees.
October 07, 2019 at 07:03 PM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Morgan Chu of Irell Manella.
The Supreme Court sounded doubtful Monday of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s claim to its attorneys fees when dissatisfied patent applicants sue the agency in federal district court.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
