News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States › Executive Powers

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary... more +
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term.  The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -
Troutman Pepper

UPDATE: Arthrex Could Lead to Director Review of Institution Decisions

Troutman Pepper on

In June 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in U.S. v. Arthrex, Inc., Nos. 19-1434, 19-1452, 19-1458 (June 21, 2021) (slip opinion). Authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court ruled that the statutory scheme...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2021 Decisions

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. on

[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Supreme Court: PTAB Judges Unconstitutionally Appointed; Court Gives Director Supervisory Authority

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP on

In United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the Supreme Court held that Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) administrative patent judges (APJs) are unconstitutionally appointed. However, the Court resolved the problem by making PTAB...more

WilmerHale

10 Open Appellate Issues Following High Court Arthrex Ruling

WilmerHale on

On June 21, 2021 the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in U.S. v. Arthrex Inc. Two questions were before the court. First, are administrative patent judges principal officers who must be appointed by the president...more

Goodwin

Issue 34: PTAB Trial Tracker

Goodwin on

The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This monthly digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...more

Jones Day

Post-Arthrex PTAB Appeals Mostly Moving On From Constitutional Kerfuffle

Jones Day on

This is a follow up to our earlier post about the fallout from the Supreme Court’s June 21, 2021 decision in U.S. v. Arthrex, holding that PTAB APJs were unconstitutionally appointed because they exercised “principal...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

PTAB Strategies and Insights - July 2021: Arthrex: One Month Later

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. on

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Arthrex, the Federal Circuit issued requests for briefing regarding the decision’s impact in pending PTAB appeals in which an Appointments Clause challenge had been...more

Jones Day

NEWS: USPTO Issues First Director Review Decisions

Jones Day on

On July 6th and 7th, the USPTO made good on its promise to not wait for a confirmed director to begin Arthrex Director reviews, issuing its first denials of review requests.  The full press release is below:...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

PTAB Strategies and Insights - July 2021

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. on

[co-author: Jay Bober, Summer Associate] 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...more

Locke Lord LLP

Impact of US v. Arthrex

Locke Lord LLP on

The long-awaited decision in United States v. Arthrex held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is inconsistent with the Constitution’s Appointments Clause because the administrative patent judges (APJs) that...more

Jones Day

USPTO updates Arthrex Q&As

Jones Day on

On July 20th, the PTAB provided additional clarifications regarding its views on Arthrex and how its interim procedures for requesting Director review will work for cases receiving Final Written Decisions on a going forward...more

Jones Day

JONES DAY TALKS®: Supreme Court Rules on Constitutionality of Administrative Patent Judges

Jones Day on

The United States Supreme Court has delivered its decision in U.S. v. Arthrex, which determined whether appointments of administrative patent judges to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck

“Unreviewable Authority” by APJs During Inter Partes Review Struck Down

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck on

In a split decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled on June 21, 2021, in United States v. Arthrex, that administrative patent judges (APJs) are not constitutionally permitted to wield “unreviewable authority” during...more

Jones Day

Boardside Chat Sheds Light On Arthrex Director Review Procedure

Jones Day on

In its July 1st Boardside Chat, the PTAB discussed the Supreme Court’s recent Arthrex decision and the interim procedure for Director review.  The panel included Drew Hirschfeld (Performing the functions and duties of the...more

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

The PTAB Review - July 2021

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati on

This issue of The PTAB Review begins with a brief summary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s most recent pronouncement about America Invents Act (AIA) reviews. It then provides an update on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s...more

Miller Canfield

Supreme Court Adds New Wrinkle to Patent Inter Partes Review Proceedings, But Actual Impact Remains Unclear

Miller Canfield on

A recent Supreme Court decision could add a new dimension to the patentability review process before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. On June 21, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. Arthrex, Inc.,...more

BakerHostetler

A Brief Overview of the USPTO’s Interim Procedures Implementing Arthrex

BakerHostetler on

On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in United States v. Arthrex, 19-1434, 19-1452, 19-1458. The issue in Arthrex was “whether the authority of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) to issue...more

Jones Day

PTAB Details Interim Procedure for Requesting Arthrex Director Review

Jones Day on

On June 29th, the PTO issued an initial protocol for requesting Director review of a PTAB Final Written Decision according to the Supreme Court’s Arthrex decision.  This Arthrex protocol is similar to the current procedure...more

Dickinson Wright

United States V. Arthrex: Inter Partes Review Decisions Now Reviewable by the PTO Director

Dickinson Wright on

On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Arthrex, which created a review process that gives the PTO Director the ability to independently review decisions rendered by Administrative Patent...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Supreme Court Assigns PTO Director a New Gig: Reviewing the PTAB's Inter Partes Decisions

McDermott Will & Emery on

Through a splintered set of opinions, the Supreme Court of the United States held that appointment of administrative patent judges (APJs) serving on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) violated the Appointments Clause of...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Justices Craft Their Own Remedy for Violation of Constitution’s Appointments Clause

Foley & Lardner LLP on

On Monday, the justices ruled 5-4 that the “unreviewable authority” of administrative patent judges meant those APJs were appointed in violation of the Constitution’s appointments clause. The justices then ruled 7-2 that the...more

Knobbe Martens

Supreme Court Saves IPRs by Allowing PTO Director to Review Patent Judges’ Decisions

Knobbe Martens on

Before the United States Supreme Court.  Majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts.  On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Summary: A statute preventing the PTO Director from...more

Troutman Pepper

Update: The Supreme Court Largely Upholds IPR Proceedings in Arthrex

Troutman Pepper on

On June 21, the Supreme Court issued its decision in U.S. v. Arthrex, Inc., Nos. 19-1434, 19-1452, 1901458 (June 21, 2021) (slip opinion). As covered previously in “What Does the Future Hold for IPRs after Arthrex?,” the case...more

Porter Hedges LLP

United States v. Arthrex: Power Given To PTAB Patent Judges “Incompatible” With Their Appointment

Porter Hedges LLP on

The much-awaited U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. issued on June 21, 2021 and held that PTAB judges’ power to issue final determinations for the executive branch in IPRs was “incompatible” with...more

Weintraub Tobin

Supreme Court Finds PTAB Judges Unconstitutional

Weintraub Tobin on

In U.S. v. Arthrex, case number 19-1434; Smith & Nephew v. Arthrex, case number 19-1452; and Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, case number 19-1458, the Supreme Court of the United States recently held that Patent Trial and Appeal...more

43 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2
Next »

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide