In That Case: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy
#WorkforceWednesday® - SpaceX Victory: Court Questions NLRB's Constitutional Authority - Employment Law This Week®
The Justice Insiders Podcast: Jarkesy’s Implications for the Administrative State
The Justice Insiders: The Administrative State is Not Your Friend - A Conversation with Professor Richard Epstein
DE Under 3: New NLx Job Count Record; Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Big Strike Down; OFCCP’s Latest CSAL
Last week, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a list of FAQs related to the new bifurcated process for discretionary denial established in the March 26 memorandum issued by Acting Director Stewart. The FAQs...more
On April 16, 2024, the PTAB proposed new rules (“proposed rules”) governing the Director Review process, which would remain consistent with the Interim review process currently in place, and codify those procedures....more
As of July 24, 2023, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) revised the interim Director Review process and replaced the Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) with the Appeals Review Panel process, which will review...more
On June 22, 2022, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced new interim guidance regarding discretionary denials of patent challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) based on parallel litigation. 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
The Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution1 provides that “principal officers” of the United States must be appointed by the President upon the advice and consent of the Senate. “Inferior officers,” on the other hand,...more
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir., October 31, 2019) - Since the inception of inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), there have been a number of...more
The statistics below reveal the current trends for proceeding breakdowns, institution rates, and outcomes of design patent PTO litigation proceedings. Three petitions were filed in January 2019, but none have been filed...more
This past year, we have seen the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) designate a number of decisions as precedential and informative more so than in past years. This is directly a result of the USPTO’s revised Standard...more
Under constitutional principles of United States law, states generally enjoy sovereign immunity. This immunity, enshrined in the 11th amendment of the US Constitution, bars private parties from bringing lawsuits against the...more
Since the passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), post-grant proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are interacting more with Section 337 investigations at the International Trade Commission...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
The USPTO has published a final rule, changing the claim construction standard applied during post-grant proceedings (inter partes reviews, post-grant reviews, and covered business methods reviews) before the Office’s Patent...more
In a final rule published in the Federal Register on October 11, 2018, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) took a remarkable step of acknowledging unfairness in the way its Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has...more
On October 10, 2018, the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) published a final rule that changes the current “broadest reasonable interpretation” or BRI standard used in inter partes review (IPR), post grant...more
In light of the Supreme Court of the United States decision in SAS Institute v. Iancu (IP Update, Vol. 21, No. 5), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
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
On April 24, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, held that inter partes review (IPR) proceedings conducted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) do not violate Article III or implicate the Seventh Amendment. ...more
Anyone reading this post is likely well aware that on April 24 the Supreme Court put an end to the PTAB’s practice of instituting inter partes review (IPR) on less than all claims challenged in an IPR petition in SAS...more
The PTAB’s new guidance in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling changes the dynamics for patent owners and petitioners. Key Points: ..Partial institutions are no longer permitted. The PTAB will review all petitioned...more
On the same day that the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of inter partes reviews, it ruled in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu that the United States Patent and Trademark Office wrongly implemented regulations allowing...more
On April 24th, the Supreme Court decided two important cases related to the United States Patent & Trademark Office’s inter partes review (IPR) proceedings for reconsidering the prior grant of a patent – Oil States Energy...more
This timely and fast-moving webinar provides insight for business leaders and legal counsel on the recently issued Supreme Court decisions in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC and SAS Institute...more
On April 24, 2018, the US Supreme Court decided two important cases that directly impact inter partes reviews (IPRs) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and patent litigation as a whole. In Oil States Energy...more
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two important patent law opinions that relate to the inter partes review procedure introduced by the America Invents Act: Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC,...more