4 Key Takeaways | Updates in Standard Essential Patent Licensing and Litigation
Behaving Badly: OpenSky v. VLSI and Sanctions at the PTAB — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Scott McKeown Discusses PTAB Trends and Growth of Wolf Greenfield’s Washington, DC Office
USPTO Director Review — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
The Briefing: Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
Podcast: The Briefing - Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
Disputing Patent-Eligible Subject Matter in PGRs and IPRs - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Reexamination in IPR and PGR Practice – Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Reissue in IPR and PGR Practice – Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
3 Key Takeaways | Third party Prior Art Submissions at USPTO
Discretionary Denials at the PTAB: What to Expect? - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Motions to Amend: PTO Pilot Program Extended - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Fish Post-Grant Radio: Episode #13: Rick Bisenius
Drilling Down: Real Parties in Interest and Time Bars - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
JONES DAY TALKS®: Supreme Court Rules on Constitutionality of Administrative Patent Judges
IPR Institution and Early Intervention - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Jones Day Talks®: Patent Litigation, PTAB, Iancu's Legacy, and Institution Discretion
[IP Hot Topics Podcast] Innovation Conversations: Andrei Iancu
Nota Bene Episode 99: Unpacking the Pendulum of American Patent Policy Then, Now, and Forward with Rob Masters
Fallout from the Fintiv Precedential Decision
Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., Appeal No. 2024-1061 (Fed. Cir. August 13, 2024) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit clarifies rules relating to when an applicant’s patent can be...more
CyWee Group Ltd. (“CyWee”) has been bouncing between the Federal Circuit and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) with its administrative challenges after two inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings invalidated the claims...more
Smith & Nephew petitioned for IPR of Arthrex’s ’907 patent, which claims a surgical device with an “eyelet” through which a suture is threaded. Smith & Nephew argued in relevant part that certain claims were anticipated by a...more
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
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
Somebody’s Wrong: PTAB Must Resolve Conflicting Factual Testimony During IPR - In Google LLC v. IPA Technologies Inc., Appeal No. 21-1179, the Federal Circuit held that, for purposes of determining whether a reference was...more
A panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit considered whether the Patent Commissioner, on assuming the role of the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Director, can constitutionally evaluate the rehearing of...more
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir. May 27, 2022) In a return to the Federal Circuit, this case again sets precedent concerning Patent Office Director review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board...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
ARTHREX, INC. v. SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. Before Moore, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: During vacancies of Director and Deputy Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,...more
Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed patent litigation. In its first...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...more
Arthrex appealed a final written decision from an inter partes review (IPR) where the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found all challenged claims of its patent anticipated. On appeal, Arthrex argued that the...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
Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., Appeal Nos. 2020-1828, -1867 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 28, 2021) - The Federal Circuit issued two precedential decisions this week—both arising from IPRs filed by Intel against patents owned by...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
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
In Mobility Workx, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, the Federal Circuit in a split decision concluded that Mobility Workx, LLC’s constitutional challenges to structure and funding of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) are...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
MOBILITY WORKX, LLC v. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC Before Newman, Schall, and Dyk. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Fee-funded structure of AIA review proceedings does not violate due process....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
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 June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court handed down a highly-anticipated decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., finding that Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”)—the judges who sit on Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”)...more
Supreme Court Opinions - United States v. Arthrex, Inc. (No. 19-1434, 6/21/21) - Vacating Federal Circuit decision regarding IPRs and remanding. In split decisions, majorities of the Court (1) held that administrative...more