Fallout from the Fintiv Precedential Decision
JONES DAY TALKS®: Appointments of PTAB Judges Ruled Unconstitutional ... What Now?
On February 20, 2024, the Supreme Court denied Liquidia Technologies’ petition for a writ of certiorari to review a precedential Federal Circuit decision, United Therapeutics Corp. v. Liquidia Techs., Inc., 74 F.4th 1360...more
Key Takeaways - ..The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to hear cases that may curtail the administrative powers of the SEC. ..These rulings may portend greater limits on federal administrative agencies generally....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
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 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
[co-authors: Patrick Murray, Risa Rahman, and Jae Bandeh] 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...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
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that in view of the Supreme Court of the United States’ 2019 decision in Thryv v. Click-to-Call, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s threshold determination that a patent...more
Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass’n, No. 18-540. Most states have enacted legislation regulating “pharmacy benefit managers”— businesses that act as middlemen between health insurers and pharmacies, earning...more
This week, the Supreme Court left open the question of Article III standing with regards to appealing a final written decision from the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) that is favorable to the patent owner. On...more
The justices of the Supreme Court of the United States have again limited the reach of Chevron deference. On May 28, 2019, the Court in Smith v. Berryhill carved another exception into what has lately proven to be its...more
On May 28, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Smith v. Berryhill, holding a dismissal by the Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council on timeliness grounds after a claimant has had an administrative law judge...more
On April 5, 2019, the PTAB designated as informative two decisions relating to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a): - Chevron Oronite Co. LLC v. Infineum USA L.P., Case IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 (Nov. 7, 2018) (designated: Apr. 5, 2019) [AIA...more
In April 2018, the United States Supreme Court held that the PTAB must issue a final written decision addressing every patent claim challenged in an IPR petition. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018). In the...more
SAS sought an inter partes review (IPR) of ComplementSoft’s patent. In its petition, SAS alleged that all of the patent’s claims were unpatentable. The PTAB determined to institute trial on some, but not all, of the...more
In SAS Institute v. Iancu, the Supreme Court held that when the PTAB institutes inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314, it must decide the patentability of all claims the petitioner has challenged. SAS Institute left open...more
After much anticipation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC or Commission) Administrative Law Judges (ALJs)....more
The new executive order (EO) granting agency chiefs the power to hire administrative law judges (ALJs) according to their own standards—and eliminating the exam and competitive hiring process formerly in place—could turn the...more
In one of its last opinions of the term, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Lucia v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on June 21, 2018, that administrative law judges (ALJs) are officers of the United States, not...more
During its most recent Term, the Supreme Court held in Lucia v. SEC that the administrative law judges (“ALJs”) that preside over adjudications at the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) are “Officers of the United...more
Respondents in pending or future proceedings should carefully assess their options until several key legal questions are resolved. The United States Supreme Court recently issued its ruling in Lucia v. Securities and...more
Orrick's Andrew Morris and Ben Aiken co-authored an article for Law360 in which they identify three of the most significant defense arguments for respondents in SEC administrative actions in light of the Supreme Court's...more
In April, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Lucia v. SEC to resolve the federal circuit court split on whether the SEC’s administrative law judges (ALJs) are "inferior officers" of the United States who must be...more
On June 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split on the question of whether administrative law judges (“ALJs”) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC” or the “Commission”) qualify as...more
In its June 21 decision in Lucia v. Securities & Exchange Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that administrative law judges (ALJs) used by the SEC are “Officers of the United States” under the Appointments Clause in...more