JONES DAY TALKS®: Supreme Court Rules on Constitutionality of Administrative Patent Judges
JONES DAY TALKS®: Appointments of PTAB Judges Ruled Unconstitutional ... What Now?
In its 2021 Arthrex decision, the US Supreme Court found the Congressionally created inter partes review (IPR) system unconstitutional because it gave too much authority to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)...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
In June 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in U.S. v. Arthrex, Inc., Nos. 19-1434, 19-1452, 19-1458 (June 21, 2021) (slip opinion). Authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court ruled that the statutory scheme...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
[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
On October 26, 2021, Chief Administrative Patent Judge (“APJ”) Scott R. Boalick of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) lifted a stay that he issued on May 1, 2020, pausing all activity in PTAB cases that were remanded...more
The Supreme Court decided a number of significant business cases in the 2019 and 2020 terms. To outside observers, the decisions are characterized largely by continuity and incrementalism—we did not see a swinging pendulum of...more
In United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the Supreme Court held that Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) administrative patent judges (APJs) are unconstitutionally appointed. However, the Court resolved the problem by making PTAB...more
In Mobility Workx, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2021), the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals addressed challenges to the constitutionality of the structure of the Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and...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
On June 21, 2021 the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in U.S. v. Arthrex Inc. Two questions were before the court. First, are administrative patent judges principal officers who must be appointed by the president...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in United States v. Arthrex has shaken up the Patent Trial and Appeals Board but will likely have little effect on case outcomes. Arthrex involved a challenge to the constitutionality of the...more
The Supreme Court rendered its decision in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew back in June and now the impact of that decision is becoming more clear. Arthrex had challenged the constitutionality of the appointment of administrative...more
The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This monthly digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...more
This is a follow up to our earlier post about the fallout from the Supreme Court’s June 21, 2021 decision in U.S. v. Arthrex, holding that PTAB APJs were unconstitutionally appointed because they exercised “principal...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
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Arthrex, the Federal Circuit issued requests for briefing regarding the decision’s impact in pending PTAB appeals in which an Appointments Clause challenge had been...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
[co-author: Jay Bober, Summer Associate] 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...more
The long-awaited decision in United States v. Arthrex held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is inconsistent with the Constitution’s Appointments Clause because the administrative patent judges (APJs) that...more
The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) updated its June 29, 2021, interim procedure to implement the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in U.S. v. Arthrex, Inc., and specifically updated the Arthrex Q&As section....more
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
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
Several decisions of interest were issued in the 2020 term, which stretched from October 2020 until early July 2021. This review will concentrate on environmental and administrative law cases....more
In a split decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled on June 21, 2021, in United States v. Arthrex, that administrative patent judges (APJs) are not constitutionally permitted to wield “unreviewable authority” during...more