Trademark attorney fee petition mechanics: Lanham Act § 1117(a) exceptional case fee petition advisory, USPTO TTAB inter partes trial schedule advisory, and § 1117(b) counterfeiting mandatory treble damages and fee advisory

USPTO TTAB inter partes opposition and cancellation advisory: calls on the TTAB docketing calendar

Under 37 C.F.R. § 2.116 et seq. (TTAB Rules of Practice), inter partes proceedings — oppositions under 15 U.S.C. § 1063 (opposition to registration during the 30-day publication period, extendable to 180 days) and cancellations under § 1064 (cancellation of a registered mark at any time on grounds including likelihood of confusion, abandonment, fraud, or genericness) — follow a TTAB-issued trial schedule that arrives on the TTAB's own docketing calendar in the TTABVUE electronic database, not in PACER. The TTAB inter partes calendar — institution order, 40-day answer deadline, discovery period, testimony period, and briefing schedule — is the primary external calendar that generates advisory calls outside counsel's control for trademark solos handling opposition and cancellation proceedings.

Three TTAB inter partes advisory call types that arrive on the TTAB docketing calendar: (1) TTAB notice of institution and answer deadline advisory — arrives when the TTAB issues its institution order and the 40-day answer deadline begins (requiring § 1063 grounds analysis for opposition (likelihood of confusion under § 2(d) / § 1052(d); descriptiveness under § 2(e)(1) / § 1052(e)(1); prior use), § 1064 cancellation grounds analysis (abandonment, functionality, fraud on the USPTO), and initial TMEP §§ 1207.01 et seq. Sleekcraft likelihood-of-confusion factor assessment — 38–46 min); (2) TTAB discovery period opening and deposition scheduling advisory — arrives when the TTAB issues its scheduling order and the discovery period opens (requiring TTAB Rule 2.120 discovery practice analysis — TTAB proceedings use written discovery and depositions governed by FRCP as modified by TTAB Rules; ACR accelerated case resolution analysis for efficient proceedings — 38–46 min); (3) TTAB trial and briefing schedule advisory — arrives when the testimony period opens and brief deadlines are set (requiring TTAB Rule 2.121 testimony period analysis, FRCP 30(b)(6) corporate designee deposition, and Octane Fitness exceptional case pre-analysis if the proceeding may transition to district court under § 1071(b) — 38–46 min). At 55% untracked: 6 clients × 2 calls × 40 min × 55% = 264 min / 60 = 4.40 hours = $1,320–$2,200/year at $300–$500/hr.

Lanham Act § 1117(a) exceptional case fee petition advisory: calls on the district court scheduling order calendar

Under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), in exceptional trademark cases the court may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party. In Octane Fitness LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545 (2014), the Supreme Court held that an exceptional case is one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigating position or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated — a totality-of-circumstances analysis that replaced the prior Brooks Furniture clear-and-convincing standard. The district court's FRCP 16(b) scheduling order — issued by the court on its own case management timeline — sets the pretrial calendar and generates advisory calls outside counsel's control whenever summary judgment deadlines, trial dates, and post-judgment motions practice windows are established.

Three § 1117(a) fee petition advisory call types that arrive on the district court scheduling order calendar: (1) FRCP 16(b) scheduling order and § 43(a) false designation of origin liability advisory — arrives when the court issues its scheduling order (requiring § 1114 registered mark infringement analysis; § 1125(a) false designation of origin / trade dress protection analysis (Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992)); § 1125(c) dilution by blurring or tarnishment under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006; and 9th Circuit Sleekcraft eight-factor likelihood-of-confusion analysis (AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979)) — 42–50 min); (2) Summary judgment and eBay permanent injunction advisory — arrives when the court's scheduling order sets the dispositive motions deadline (requiring FRCP 56 summary judgment standards; eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) four-factor test for permanent injunctive relief; § 1116(a) injunction powers; and § 1117(a) profits accounting analysis for willful infringement — 42–50 min); (3) § 1117(a) exceptional case fee petition advisory — arrives when the court enters final judgment (requiring Octane Fitness totality-of-circumstances exceptionality analysis; Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) lodestar calculation from first advisory call through judgment; PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, 22 Cal.4th 1084 (2000) California prevailing market rate for concurrent UCL § 17200 state-law claims; and bad-faith litigation conduct analysis as an exceptionality factor — 42–50 min). At 55% untracked: 6 clients × 3 calls × 44 min × 55% = 435.6 min / 60 = 7.26 hours = $2,178–$3,630/year at $300–$500/hr.

§ 1117(b) counterfeiting mandatory treble damages and attorney fees advisory: calls on the post-judgment calendar

Under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(b), when a court finds intentional use of a counterfeit mark in connection with the sale or distribution of goods or services, the court shall — unless it finds extenuating circumstances — award three times the profits or damages, whichever is greater, and a reasonable attorney fee. The mandatory "shall award" standard under § 1117(b) is significantly more favorable than the discretionary § 1117(a) exceptional-case standard: in counterfeiting cases, no Octane Fitness exceptionality showing is required, and the fee award follows automatically from a finding of intentional counterfeiting. The § 1116(d) ex parte seizure order — which allows a trademark owner to obtain an emergency TRO to seize counterfeit goods before the defendant can destroy or conceal evidence — places the counterfeiting action on its own emergency scheduling calendar outside ordinary civil litigation timelines.

Three § 1117(b) counterfeiting mandatory fee advisory call types that arrive on the post-judgment calendar: (1) § 1116(d) ex parte seizure order advisory — arrives when counterfeiting is discovered and emergency seizure is sought (requiring § 1116(d)(4) ex parte application grounds analysis; § 1,000–$10,000 TRO security bond analysis; and CBP recordation for import seizure under 19 U.S.C. § 1526 and 19 C.F.R. Part 133 — 44–52 min); (2) § 1117(c) statutory damages election advisory — arrives when the complaint is filed and discovery opens (requiring § 1117(c) election of statutory damages — $1,000–$200,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods or services, or $2,000,000 per counterfeit mark if willful — as an alternative to actual damages and profits when actual damages are difficult to prove; the election must be made before final judgment — 44–52 min); (3) § 1117(b) mandatory fee petition preparation advisory — arrives when the court finds liability for intentional counterfeiting (requiring Hensley lodestar documentation from first advisory call through judgment; § 1117(b) mandatory "shall award" standard — no Octane Fitness exceptionality required; segregation of counterfeiting hours from any non-counterfeiting § 1114 infringement hours subject to § 1117(a) exceptionality; and § 1125(d) ACPA cybersquatting fee petition analysis for domain name counterfeiting claims — 44–52 min). At 55% untracked: 4 clients × 2 calls × 46 min × 55% = 201.6 min / 60 = 3.36 hours = $1,008–$1,680/year at $300–$500/hr.

How ClaimHour fits trademark practice

If you handle trademark matters involving TTAB inter partes proceedings, § 1117(a) infringement litigation, and § 1117(b) counterfeiting — with TTAB advisory calls arriving when the USPTO TTAB issues its institution order and scheduling order on its own docketing calendar in TTABVUE outside PACER, § 1117(a) fee petition advisory calls arriving when the court's FRCP 16(b) scheduling order establishes the Octane Fitness totality-of-circumstances framework, and § 1117(b) counterfeiting mandatory fee advisory calls arriving when the court finds intentional counterfeiting and the mandatory "shall award" standard eliminates the exceptionality burden — and if your fee documentation must satisfy Hensley lodestar specificity from the TTAB institution date, the court's scheduling order, and the post-judgment fee award calendar, ClaimHour was built for that gap.

Get early access

Related questions