In United States v. Arthrex Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the Federal Circuit that the pre-Arthrex Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) regime of Administrative Patent Judge decisions being insulated from executive...more
6/24/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Executive Branch ,
Executive Powers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO
The Supreme Court ruled in Return Mail that a federal agency is not a "person" who may challenge an issued patent in inter partes review, post-grant review, or CBM review under the AIA.
In its 6–3 decision in Return Mail,...more
6/18/2019
/ Administrative Agencies ,
America Invents Act ,
Congressional Intent ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Ex Partes Reexamination ,
Government Entities ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Return Mail Inc v United States Postal Service ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Statutory Interpretation ,
USPS
On April 24, 2018, in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, a closely divided U.S. Supreme Court fundamentally changed the way that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board confronts inter partes reviews under the America Invents Act. The...more
6/18/2018
/ Administrative Proceedings ,
America Invents Act ,
Chevron Deference ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Oil States Energy Services v Greene's Energy Group ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
SAS Institute Inc. v Iancu ,
SCOTUS
In a closely followed case before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of SAS Institute Inc., a cross-office, cross-practice Jones Day team has challenged the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) practice to elect to institute...more