In That Case: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy
#WorkforceWednesday® - SpaceX Victory: Court Questions NLRB's Constitutional Authority - Employment Law This Week®
The Justice Insiders Podcast: Jarkesy’s Implications for the Administrative State
The Justice Insiders: The Administrative State is Not Your Friend - A Conversation with Professor Richard Epstein
DE Under 3: New NLx Job Count Record; Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Big Strike Down; OFCCP’s Latest CSAL
On April 16, 2024, the PTAB proposed new rules (“proposed rules”) governing the Director Review process, which would remain consistent with the Interim review process currently in place, and codify those procedures....more
As of July 24, 2023, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) revised the interim Director Review process and replaced the Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) with the Appeals Review Panel process, which will review...more
On June 22, 2022, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced new interim guidance regarding discretionary denials of patent challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) based on parallel litigation. The...more
In Mobility Workx, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, the Federal Circuit in a split decision concluded that Mobility Workx, LLC’s constitutional challenges to structure and funding of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) are...more
MOBILITY WORKX, LLC v. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC Before Newman, Schall, and Dyk. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Fee-funded structure of AIA review proceedings does not violate due process....more
A patent interference is an inter partes proceeding to determine which party was the first to invent commonly claimed subject matter. An interference is also a viable procedure for challenging the validity of an issued patent...more
A PGR is a trial proceeding conducted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to determine the patentability of one or more claims of a patent that issued from an application filed after March 15, 2013. ...more
Abbreviated new drug (ANDA) applicant Amneal petitioned for an inter partes review (IPR) of Almirall’s patent listed in the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Orange Book for a prescription drug to treat acne. Almirall...more
We surveyed inter partes review proceedings instituted in the year following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, and identified five takeaways regarding the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's...more
America Invents Act Reviews, or "AIA Reviews" are administrative proceedings which can be used to seek the invalidity of a U.S. Patent. After their creation in 2011, AIA reviews have become an important component of patent...more
Updated April 1, 2020 We previously reported on USPTO COVID-19 related information, including a prior statement that the USPTO was unable to change deadlines. The USPTO has now obtained statutory authority to modify...more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
The Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution1 provides that “principal officers” of the United States must be appointed by the President upon the advice and consent of the Senate. “Inferior officers,” on the other hand,...more
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir., October 31, 2019) - Since the inception of inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), there have been a number of...more
In an August 12, 2019 order, the Federal Circuit asked the government what deference, if any, should the court give PTAB Precedential Opinion Panel ("POP") decisions. Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC (Fed. Cir....more
The statistics below reveal the current trends for proceeding breakdowns, institution rates, and outcomes of design patent PTO litigation proceedings. Three petitions were filed in January 2019, but none have been filed...more
The PTAB designated its termination decision in Infiltrator Water Technologies, LLC v. Presby Patent Trust, IPR2018-00224 (Paper 18)(entered October 1, 2018) as precedential on September 9, 2019, and its decision denying...more
Under constitutional principles of United States law, states generally enjoy sovereign immunity. This immunity, enshrined in the 11th amendment of the US Constitution, bars private parties from bringing lawsuits against the...more
Celgene Corp. v. Peter, Appeal Nos. 2018-1167, -1168, -1169 (Fed. Cir. July 30, 2019) - Celgene owned two patents that pertained to methods of safely distributing potentially hazardous drugs. The patents were challenged...more
In a precedential decision, issued June 14, 2019, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s ruling against the University of Minnesota, declining to dismiss petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”). The court rejected the...more
In Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. LSI Corporation, Fed. Cir., No. 18-01559, the Federal Circuit extended the inability to stand behind 11th Amendment Sovereign Immunity to patents owned by individual states, such that they...more
On June 14, 2019, in Regents of the University of Minnesota v. LSI Corp., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided that state sovereign immunity does not apply to inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before...more
Just after making the NHK and Valve Corp decisions precedential, the Board distinguished them in Amazon. While NHK and Valve Corp resulted in denial, in Amazon the Board instituted trial despite Amazon having similar issues...more
On April 15, the Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari filed by Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, leaving intact the Federal Circuit’s ruling that tribal sovereign immunity does not apply in inter partes reviews. See Saint...more