28 U.S.C. § 1928
Patent infringement action; disclaimer not filed
Whenever a judgment is rendered for the plaintiff in any patent infringement action involving a part of a patent and it appears that the patentee, in his specifications, claimed to be, but was not, the original and first inventor or discoverer of any material or substantial part of the thing patented, no costs shall be included in such judgment, unless the proper disclaimer has been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office prior to the commencement of the action.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1967–2023 · leading case: Marx v. General Revenue Corp.
Marx v. General Revenue Corp. (2013)
“, 28 U. S. C. §1928 (“[N]o costs shall be included in such judg- ment, unless the proper disclaimer has been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office”).”
O'Connell v. DeMartino (In Re DeMartino) (2011)
“The Debtor filed a combined opposition to the Motion and cross-motion for costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1928 (“Opposition Papers”) (Dckt.”
McDonald v. McCarthy (1992)
“(See 28 U.S.C. § 1928 , which forbids the award of costs to a successful plaintiff in a patent infringement action under the circumstances described by the statute).”
Securacomm Consulting, Inc. v. Securacom Inc. (2000)
“Although the availability of alternate sanctioning tools may factor into the district court’s decision whether to award fees under § 35(a) in a particular case, it does not bar an award of fees under the Act.”
Orlando Garcia v. Gateway Hotel L.P. (2023)
“(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1928 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (b)).”
Lamoureux v. Genesis Pharmacy Services Inc. (2004)
“28 U.S.C. § 1928 . (D.’s Mem. Supp. Mot., 9/14/04, at 11).”
MPT, Inc. v. Marathon Labels, Inc. (2007)
“Defendants argue that costs are prohibited under 28 U.S.C. § 1928 , which provides as follows: Whenever a judgment is rendered for the plaintiff in any patent infringement action involving a part of a patent and it appears that the patentee, in his specifications, claimed to be,…”
In Re Liang-Houh Shieh (1999)
“The Court also issued an order to show cause why Respondent should not be sanctioned under Rule 11 for filing the complaint in the first instance, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1928 for the memorandum filed on June 2,1992.”
Bishman Manufacturing Co. And George T. Hemmeter v. Stewart-Warner Corporation (1967)
“See also 28 U.S.C. § 1928 . The plaintiffs in the instant case were therefore not entitled to an award of costs.”
Billings v. Cape Cod Child Development Program, Inc. (2003)
“§ 32 (mineral lands claim), and 28 U.S.C. § 1928 (patent infringement), all statutes in which Congress specifically prohibited the award of costs.”
Obrien v. FCA US LLC (2019)
“37 for court appearances and the inspection 14 of the vehicle because these costs are not allowed under 28 U.S.C. § 1928 . Id. at 8 . 15 • CourtCall and Appearance Attorneys: FCA argues that the cost award should be 16 reduced by $86.”
Vista Capital Investments, LLC v. Natural Shrimp, Inc. (2020)
“Hayes 18 United States District Court 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 |} 27 Natural Shrimp cites 28 U.S.C. § 1928 and 18 U.S.C. § 1927 . However, the Court references the relevant 28 section: 28 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.