直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Article

Attorney Fees, the PTAB and You: Recent Guidance Regarding Section 285 Fees Tied to PTAB Actions

February 18, 2021

Westlaw Today

By Anthony D. Del Monaco; Forrest A. Jones; Joseph M. Myles

Under exceptional circumstances, Section 285 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C.A. § 285, allows district court litigants to recover attorney fees from patent litigations. In district court litigation, this tool has been available for a long time, and there is significant guidance about when it is and is not appropriate.

However, with the America Invents Act (AIA) expansion of available post-grant procedures before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the 2014 Octane Fitness decision making awards of attorney fees more available, litigants are increasingly turning to Section 285 even where the exceptional circumstances arise in other procedures.

Read more.

Tags

attorney fees, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), 35 U.S.C. § 285, America Invents Act (AIA)

Downloadable Files

  • PUBLISHED - Westlaw Today - Attorney Fees, the Ptab and You_Rece

Related Practices

Appeals to the PTAB

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

Related Offices

Washington, DC

Related Professionals

Forrest A. Jones
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4019
Email
Joseph M. Myles
Associate
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4372
Email

©2021 Thomson Reuters. Originally published by Westlaw Today. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm’s clients.

Related Insights

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 3, 2026

Paris

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Webinar

U.S. Patent Case Law Update 2026

July 23, 2026

Webinar

Webinar

Successful Strategies to Win Alice Motions and Fee Awards in Patent Cases Against Non-Practicing Entities

July 22, 2026

Webinar

Webinar

Early Motions in Trade Secret Litigation – Offensive and Defensive Insights

July 15, 2026

Webinar

Webinar

Inventive Step in Europe and the US: Comparing the UPC, EPO and National Approaches

July 8, 2026

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands Infringement and Damages Judgment After Erroneous Verdict Form and Eligibility Analysis

July 8, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for March–May 2026

July 2, 2026

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue

July 1, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP