JONES DAY TALKS®: Supreme Court Rules on Constitutionality of Administrative Patent Judges
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
This issue of The PTAB Review begins with a brief summary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s most recent pronouncement about America Invents Act (AIA) reviews. It then provides an update on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s...more
A recent Supreme Court decision could add a new dimension to the patentability review process before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. On June 21, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. Arthrex, Inc.,...more
On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in United States v. Arthrex, 19-1434, 19-1452, 19-1458. The issue in Arthrex was “whether the authority of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) to issue...more
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
On June 21, 2021, in United States v. Arthrex, the Supreme Court finds that Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”) on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) panels for inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings to be acting...more
On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Arthrex, which created a review process that gives the PTO Director the ability to independently review decisions rendered by Administrative Patent...more
Through a splintered set of opinions, the Supreme Court of the United States held that appointment of administrative patent judges (APJs) serving on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) violated the Appointments Clause of...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
Before the United States Supreme Court. Majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts. On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Summary: A statute preventing the PTO Director from...more
On June 21, the Supreme Court issued its decision in U.S. v. Arthrex, Inc., Nos. 19-1434, 19-1452, 1901458 (June 21, 2021) (slip opinion). As covered previously in “What Does the Future Hold for IPRs after Arthrex?,” the case...more
The much-awaited U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. issued on June 21, 2021 and held that PTAB judges’ power to issue final determinations for the executive branch in IPRs was “incompatible” with...more
In U.S. v. Arthrex, case number 19-1434; Smith & Nephew v. Arthrex, case number 19-1452; and Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, case number 19-1458, the Supreme Court of the United States recently held that Patent Trial and Appeal...more
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued its decision in three related appeals popularly called Arthrex. We previously published an alert with a summary of the different opinions in that decision. This alert focuses more on...more
In U.S. v. Arthrex, Inc. (19-1434); Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc. (19-1452); and Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. (19-1458), a splintered Supreme Court agreed with the Federal Circuit that there is a problem at...more
The Constitution’s Article II “Appointments Clause” requires the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint “officers” of the United States. In United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the Supreme Court reviewed...more
In the long-awaited decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is unconstitutionally structured, but held that the correct remedy is more limited than...more
This week, in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the Supreme Court vacated and remanded a decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”), holding that the administrative patent judges (“APJs”) at the...more