Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-801_o758.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

2 

PETER v. NANTKWEST, INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

before the [agency].”  Kappos v. Hyatt, 566 U. S. 431, 434 
(2012); 35 U. S. C. §144.

The second pathway allows applicants to file a new civil
action  against  the  Director  of  the  PTO  in  federal  district 
court.  §145.  Unlike §141, §145 “permits the applicant to
present new evidence . . . not presented to the PTO.”  Kap-
pos, 566 U. S., at 435.  The district court “acts as a factfinder 
when new evidence is introduced in a §145 proceeding” and 
must make de novo determinations that take into account 
“both the new evidence and the administrative record be-
fore the PTO.”  Id., at 444, 446.  The parties may appeal the
district  court’s  final  decision  to  the  Federal  Circuit.    28 
U. S. C. §1295(a)(4)(C).

Because §145 does not limit an applicant’s ability to in-
troduce  new  evidence  to  challenge  the  denial  of  a  patent, 
Kappos, 566 U. S., at 439, it can result in protracted litiga-
tion.  As a condition for permitting such extensive review,
the Patent Act requires applicants who avail themselves of
§145  to  pay  “[a]ll  the  expenses  of  the  proceedings.”    35 
U. S. C. §145. 

B 
After the PTO denied respondent NantKwest, Inc.’s pa-
tent  application  directed  to  a  method  for  treating  cancer,
NantKwest filed a complaint against the PTO Director in 
the Eastern District of Virginia under §145.  The District 
Court granted summary judgment to the PTO, and the Fed-
eral  Circuit  affirmed.  NantKwest,  Inc.  v.  Lee,  686  Fed. 
Appx.  864  (2017).    The  PTO  moved  for  reimbursement  of 
expenses that included—for the first time in the 170-year 
history of §145—the pro rata salaries of PTO attorneys and 
a paralegal who worked on the case. 

The District Court denied the PTO’s motion to recover its 
pro rata  legal  fees  as  “expenses”  of  the  §145  proceeding.
The court concluded that the statutory language referenc-
ing expenses was not clear enough to rebut the “American