JONES DAY TALKS®: Supreme Court Rules on Constitutionality of Administrative Patent Judges
JONES DAY TALKS®: Appointments of PTAB Judges Ruled Unconstitutional ... What Now?
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
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 exception. It briefly returned to live...more
[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
This post summarizes some of the significant developments related to patent litigation in federal district courts of Texas for the month of October 2021....more
Is the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) constitutional? This was a question asked by Mobility Workx in Mobility Workx, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, 2021-1441, 2021 WL 4762265 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Mobility Workx raised...more
On October 13, in Mobility Workx v. Unified Patents, LLC, the Federal Circuit rejected a series of due process challenges to the structure of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), leaving the PTAB to continue with...more
We previously published an article discussing patent owner’s due process challenges based on alleged pecuniary interests of the Office and Administrative Patent Judges instituting cases to meet production goals and increase...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
A split panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the structure and functions of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) survived yet another constitutional challenge, this time based on the...more
For those familiar with inter partes review—or IPR, as it is known—the recent Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Arthrex was much anticipated because it carried with it the potential to upend the entire IPR system. IPR has...more
In this second edition of Orrick’s quarterly series on the PTAB, we summarize the Arthrex decision, walk through the PTO’s post-Arthrex interim procedure for reviewing PTAB decisions, and discuss potential post-Arthrex...more
On Monday, in a highly-anticipated decision, a fractured Supreme Court issued its opinion in United States v. Arthrex, et al., striking a portion of the America Invents Act (AIA) as unconstitutional—but providing an...more
Ever since institution of the post-grant review proceedings enacted under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act were implemented by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (through the newly constituted Patent Trial and Appeal...more
The Supreme Court heard argument on Monday in U.S. v. Arthrex, involving the question of whether appointment of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) and their authority under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act violates the...more
[co-author: Kathleen Wills] Last year, the global COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for American courts. By making several changes, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was able to...more
It has been argued that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) cannot engage in rulemaking through decisions made by its administrative patent judges (APJs), even if those decisions are made precedential, as APJs...more
The authors have recently proposed alternative analyses for the discretionary denial of IPR and PGR petitions involved in parallel district court litigation, as well as for the discretionary denial of serial petitions filed...more
Last week, in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may consider patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for substitute claims. The appeal raises issues of finality...more
WHAT DO WE KNOW? 1. On July 22, 2020, a sharply split Federal Circuit panel held that “[t]he PTAB correctly concluded that it is not limited by § 311(b) in its review of proposed substitute claims in an IPR, and that it...more
Arthrex recently filed a(nother) certiorari petition with the Supreme Court, this time in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., which has also been the subject of petitions from the U.S. government and Smith & Nephew. (This...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a petition for panel rehearing regarding the constitutionality of decisions issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
Addressing whether a party can waive a challenge to the constitutionality of Administrative Patent Judges’ (APJs’) appointment, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the issue is non-jurisdictional and...more
In October 2019, a Federal Circuit panel concluded that the status of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) violated the Appointments...more
The Federal Circuit issued an order Monday denying both panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, 931 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019)....more
Last fall, the Federal Circuit held in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. that the way the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) had appointed administrative patent judges (“APJs”) to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more