Frederick Taylor v. Commissioner Lee of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, No. 1:2015cv01684 - Document 111 (E.D. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 11/6/17. (jlan)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Frederick Taylor v. Commissioner Lee of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Doc. 111 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division WILLIAM MICHAEL FREDERICK TAYLOR, Plaintiff, l:15-cv-1607 (LMB/JFA) V. JOSEPH MATAL, performing the functions and duties of Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Defendant. WILLIAM MICHAEL FREDERICK TAYLOR, Plaintiff, l:15-cv-1684 (LMB/JFA) V. JOSEPH MATAL, performing the functions and duties of Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Defendant. WILLIAM MICHAEL FREDERICK TAYLOR, Plaintiff, l:16-cv-12 (LMB/JFA) V. JOSEPH MATAL, performing the functions and duties of Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Defendant. Dockets.Justia.com applications at issue, the separate PTAB opinions airming denial of the applications, nd plaintiffs new evidence in support of patentability, as well as preparing his own 80-page report and being deposed. See Def.'s Mot., Ex. 3. His hourly rates of $250 per hour or preparing his report and $350 per hour or appearing at a deposition re not unreasonable. See, e.g." NantKwest, Inc. v. Lee, 162 F. Supp. 3d at 546 (inding expert witness rates of between $800 and $1,000 not excessive). Id. On this record, the Court inds that the USPTO's expert expenses are reasonable and must be paid by plaintif. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, in an order to be issued with this Memorandum Opinion, plintiffs Motions or Reconsideration Case No. 15-cv-1607, [Dkt. No. 107]; Case No. 15-cv-1684, [Dkt. No. 106]; Case No. 16-cv-12, [Dkt. No. 99] will be denied and deendant's Motions or Expenses, Case No. 1:15-cv-1607, [Dkt. No. 103]; Case No. 1: 15-cv-1684, [Dkt. No. 100]; Case No. 1:16-cv-12, [Dkt. No. 95], will be granted in part and held in abeyance as to personnel expenses. Entered this _ day of November, 2017. Alexandria, Virginia Leonie M. Brinkema United States District Judge 11
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
