Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-801_o758.pdf
Page Number: 3

Cite as:  589 U. S. ____ (2019) 

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 
corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 18–801 
_________________ 

LAURA PETER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PATENT 
AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, PETITIONER v. 
NANTKWEST, INC. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

[December 11, 2019]

 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court. 
Section 145 of the Patent Act affords applicants “dissat-
isfied  with  the  decision  of  the  Patent  Trial  and  Appeal
Board”  an  opportunity  to  file  a  civil  action  in  the  United
States  District  Court  for  the  Eastern  District  of  Virginia. 
35  U. S. C.  §145.    The  statute  specifies  that  “[a]ll  the  ex-
penses of the proceedings shall be paid by the applicant.” 
Ibid.  The question presented in this case is whether such
“expenses”  include  the  salaries  of  attorney  and  paralegal
employees of the United States Patent and Trademark Of-
fice (PTO).  We hold that they do not. 

I 
A 
The Patent Act creates two mutually exclusive pathways
to challenge an adverse decision by the PTO.  The first per-
mits judicial review by direct appeal to the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  §141.  There is “no 
opportunity  for  the  applicant  to  offer  new  evidence”  in  a 
§141 proceeding, and the Federal Circuit “must review the
PTO’s decision on the same administrative record that was