On May 16, 2023, the Federal Circuit denied a petition for a writ of mandamus to direct the Board to vacate an institution decision based on stock ownership of an administrative patent judges (“APJ”) in In re Centripetal...more
On May 3, 2022, a panel of three PTAB administrative patent judges granted a motion for additional discovery in TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v. Parkervision, Inc., IPR2021-00985, (PTAB 2022), in which the PTAB deemed the...more
The Federal Circuit’s decision on May 27, 2022 in Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew Inc. et al., set forth that Patent Commissioner, Drew Hirshfeld, was within the bounds of the U.S. Supreme Court’s United States v. Arthrex...more
On March 3, 2022, Andrew Hirshfeld, the Commissioner for Patents and acting Director of the USPTO, issued the third post-Arthrex grant of Director Review for two separate Final Written Decisions issued by the PTAB based on a...more
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
8/3/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Covered Business Method Patents ,
Executive Branch ,
Executive Powers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
SCOTUS ,
Sua Sponte ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO
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
7/22/2021
/ 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 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
7/20/2021
/ 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
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
7/7/2021
/ 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
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
6/30/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Administrative Review ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Executive Branch ,
Executive Powers ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Interim Measures ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO
On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Arthex stating: Today, we reaffirm and apply the rule from Edmond that the exercise of executive power by inferior officers must at some level be subject to the...more
An April 13, 2021 decision by the Federal Circuit denied a motion to vacate and remand PTAB decisions based on the Federal Circuit’s October 2019 decision in Arthrex v. Smith & Newman, Inc., et al., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir....more
On Monday the Supreme Court heard arguments in the Arthrex case (Nos. 19-1434; -1452; -1458) regarding whether PTAB judges are principal officers, who must be appointed by the president and confirmed, or whether they are...more
On March 23, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued a per curiam order denying rehearing and rehearing en banc in Arthrex. See Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 18-2140, Order Denying Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, Dkt....more
On January 31, 2020, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) final written decision in view of Arthrex, but did so reluctantly because it disagreed with the merits and questioned the...more
2/15/2020
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Remand ,
USPTO ,
Vacated
January 17 Update: On January 17, each of the parties filed responses to the rehearing petitions -
As we have previously discussed on this blog and elsewhere, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew...more
1/20/2020
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appeals ,
Appointments Clause ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Judicial Appointments ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Petition For Rehearing ,
Remand ,
Statutory Authority ,
USPTO ,
Vacated
The Federal Circuit and the patent world continues to grapple with the court’s decision in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew. Since our last updates, the parties in Arthrex and other cases have continued the push for en banc...more
1/20/2020
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appeals ,
Appointments Clause ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Petition For Rehearing ,
Remand ,
USPTO ,
Vacated
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew excited and disrupted the patent world... Inter partes review (IPR) reshaped patent law and patent litigation this decade after the America Invents Act took effect....more
12/17/2019
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Appellate Briefs ,
Appointments Clause ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Appointments ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Petition For Rehearing ,
Remand ,
Statutory Authority ,
USPTO ,
Vacated
In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., the Federal Circuit has held that appointments of Administrative Patent Judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") were in violation of the Appointments Clause of the U.S....more
On December 4, 2019, the PTAB hosted the last installment for 2019 in its “Boardside Chat” webinar series. The program, presented by Deputy Chief Judge Jacqueline Bonilla and Lead Administrative Patent Judge Jessica Kaiser,...more
On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet conducted a hearing to discuss recent court decisions, namely the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex. Previously...more
Following up on a November 4th oral argument (accessible here) that focused on the Arthrex Appointments Clause issue, the Federal Circuit has requested additional briefing from Polaris, Kingston, and the U.S. regarding the...more
11/15/2019
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Administrative Procedure ,
Appeals ,
Appointments Clause ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Non-Judicial Settlement Agreements ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Petition For Rehearing ,
Precedential Opinion ,
Retroactivity
Judge Dyk and Judge Newman disagree with the Arthrex remedy requiring rehearing. In Arthrex, the Federal Circuit panel of Judges Moore, Reyna, and Chen held the appointment of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) was an...more
11/12/2019
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Administrative Procedure ,
Appointments Clause ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Non-Judicial Settlement Agreements ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Petition For Rehearing ,
Precedential Opinion ,
Retroactivity ,
Statutory Interpretation
Last Thursday, the Federal Circuit found the appointments of Patent Trial and Appeal judges unconstitutional, in part because the judges do not receive sufficient oversight from the Director of the United States Patent and...more
11/6/2019
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Officers of the United States ,
Patent Act ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Presidential Appointments ,
Remand ,
Removal At-Will ,
Vacated
On December 6, 2018, the PTAB hosted a Boardside Chat webinar on hearsay and authentication. The Administrative Patent Judges presenting the webinar were Michael Zecher, Tom Giannetti, and Grace Obermann.
The webinar began...more