In Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp., the Federal Circuit held that Qualcomm was not afforded notice of, or an adequate opportunity to respond to, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) novel construction of an undisputed...more
Last week, the Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. As explained in more detail in our June 24, 2021 post, after holding that “the unreviewable authority wielded by APJs during inter partes...more
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
6/25/2021
/ 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 Monday that more than 200 administrative patent judges in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office must be subject to greater supervision by the agency director in order to comply with the Constitution’s...more
In a precedential decision, the Federal Circuit held that Apple lacked standing to appeal from its loss as petitioner in a couple of inter partes reviews (IPRs) against patent owner Qualcomm.
Background -
Qualcomm sued...more
5/18/2021
/ Appeals ,
Apple ,
En Banc Review ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
IP License ,
License Agreements ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Qualcomm ,
Standing
On April 22, 2021, the Supreme Court decided Carr v. Saul, a case with interesting parallels to Arthrex, which deals with appointments clause challenges to the PTAB judges and which will be decided later this Term. In Carr,...more
The oral argument in the combined Arthrex cases was held on March 1, 2021. While the parties argued what they considered to be the key issues in their merits briefing, the oral argument provided insight into how the justices...more
On Monday, the justices heard 90 minutes of argument in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. and two consolidated cases about whether hundreds of administrative patent judges of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are “principal...more
The justices continue their light load for the February argument session next week. First up is Monday’s United States v. Arthrex, Inc., consolidated with both Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc. and Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith...more
3/1/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Petition for Writ of Certiorari ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO
Arthrex filed its reply brief on February 19th, submitting what will be the final word in the case until oral arguments are presented next week. In its reply, Arthrex seeks to shore up its own arguments while rebutting the...more
Smith & Nephew and the United States filed their reply briefs on January 22. In its reply brief, the United States rebuts many of the positions taken by Arthrex in its initial merits brief. While Smith & Nephew, in its reply,...more
Smith & Nephew and the United States filed their reply briefs on January 22. Smith & Nephew’s reply brief, which we review here, critiques the arguments Arthrex made in its initial merits brief, addresses some issues raised...more
In a precedential decision, the Federal Circuit held that the threshold determination that appellant SIPCO LLC’s patent qualifies for covered business method (CBM) review is non-appealable. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument in the Arthrex cases (docket 19-1434) for March 1, 2021. And, as of January 11, 2021, the Court has accepted the oral argument time divisions proposed by the Acting Solicitor...more
In the wake of Arthrex’s initial merits brief, amicus briefs in support of Arthrex’s position were filed December 29th and 30th. In the Arthrex cases (docketed as 19-1434), the parties have persuaded the Supreme Court to...more
Progress in the Arthrex case before the Supreme Court continues as Arthrex submitted its initial merits brief on December 23rd. We have previously discussed the decision by the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court’s grant of...more
On December 2nd, amicus briefs in support of Smith & Nephew and the United States were filed with the Supreme Court in the Arthrex cases. There were also several amicus briefs filed in support of no party. Previous articles...more
Opening briefs from Smith & Nephew and the United States have been filed with the Supreme Court in the Arthrex cases which, as previously discussed, granted the petitions for certiorari from Arthrex, Inc., Smith & Nephew...more
The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded an IPR decision in Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, because the PTAB used the wrong standard in evaluating whether a reference was analogous art. The correct standard,...more
Now that the Supreme Court has granted cert in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, patent owners and petitioners alike may be wondering what ramifications the Court’s decision may have on their proceedings. In this article, we...more
11/18/2020
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Director of the USPTO ,
Inferior Officers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Polaris Innovations Ltd v Kingston Technology Co ,
Principle Officers ,
SCOTUS ,
Severability Doctrine ,
Tenure ,
United States v Arthrex Inc
On October 20, 2020, the PTO published in the Federal Register a request for comments about whether it should embark on a formal notice-and-comment rulemaking process directed to how the PTAB exercises its discretion in...more
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case that has dramatic and sweeping implications for proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). On October 13, 2020, the Supreme Court granted three petitions for writ of...more
In a succinct opinion, the Federal Circuit ordered a remedy which raises questions thought to have been settled in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, namely whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board can address only some of the...more
Covered business method (CBM) review is scheduled to end on September 15 this year. Part of the Leahy-Smith American Invents Act, CBM review was envisioned as a transitional tool for accused infringers to challenge weak...more
In Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, the Supreme Court held that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) precludes judicial review of the PTAB’s decision to institute inter partes review (IPR) even on a petition filed beyond the 35...more