Smith & Nephew petitioned for IPR of Arthrex’s ’907 patent, which claims a surgical device with an “eyelet” through which a suture is threaded. Smith & Nephew argued in relevant part that certain claims were anticipated by a...more
As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more
On Friday May 27, 2022, the Federal Circuit added another opinion to the Arthrex line of cases. As a short refresher, Arthrex was back at the Federal Circuit after being remanded to the Board for Director Review after Patent...more
On May 27, in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., the Federal Circuit agreed that the Commissioner for Patents, performing the duties of the Director of the USPTO, had the authority to decide a request for rehearing of a...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 Federal Circuit issued just one precedential opinion last week. But it’s an interesting one: The Court exercised its discretion to reach (or rather, avoid) a constitutional issue not pressed or passed upon by the trial...more
Follow-Up to Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Technology Company, Inc. As previously reported here, Judges Reyna, Hughes, and Wallach ordered additional briefing in Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Technology...more
At the end of 2018, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued an opinion in One World Techs., Inc. v. United States. In that decision, Judge Choe-Groves concluded that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)...more
In 2012, Congress created a new procedure that allows the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to conduct a litigation-like procedure to review and potentially cancel patents. This procedure - inter partes review (“IPR”) - has...more
On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC rejecting a Constitutional challenge to the inter partes review (IPR) procedure for challenging an issued...more
In a move that could drastically change the patent law landscape, the United States Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Oil States Energy Services LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group LLC, No. 16-712, to answer the question...more
On May 11, 2017, with six of its twelve active judges authoring or joining separate opinions, the Federal Circuit denied a petition for an initial hearing en banc which asked the full Court to address the question “whether a...more
In SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, the Supreme Court last week overruled the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision that laches (unreasonable delay in bringing a claim) can bar recovery of...more
In SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products, decided on March 21, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly reduced the role of the laches defense in patent actions: "Laches cannot be interposed as a defense...more
The Supreme Court held that laches is no longer a defense against patent infringement. The Patent Act’s six-year statute of limitations already limits the window for damages for infringement, which precludes any further...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit convened an en banc panel to examine the Supreme Court’s “Raging Bull” decision in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. in the context of deciding whether laches remains a...more
On January 13, 2014, MPHJ Technology Investment LLC (MPHJ) filed a seven-count complaint against the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleging various constitutional and other violations, including violations of MPHJ’s First...more