On March 23, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued a per curiam order denying rehearing and rehearing en banc in Arthrex. See Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 18-2140, Order Denying Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, Dkt....more
As we previously covered, on October 31, 2019, the Federal Circuit held in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320, that PTAB judges (i.e., administrative patent judges, or APJs) were principal officers appointed...more
While the rest of us wait on the Federal Circuit’s decision on the rehearing petitions in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., there are signs that the Federal Circuit judges themselves may already have moved on. In...more
Arthrex appealed a final written decision from an inter partes review (IPR) where the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found all challenged claims of its patent anticipated. On appeal, Arthrex argued for the first time...more
As we have previously discussed on this blog and elsewhere, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew has generated significant discussion and controversy in the patent world. On December 16, both parties...more
For the Patent and Trial Appeal Board (“PTAB”), the Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”) are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce in consultation with the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. For an...more
This document provides a factual overview of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, discusses the court’s remedy, and addresses implications for litigants with Patent Trial and Appeal Board cases pending...more
On November 9, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered the parties in Polaris Innovations Lt. v. Kingston Technology Company, Inc. to provide supplemental briefing addressing the...more
Last Thursday, the Federal Circuit found the appointments of Patent Trial and Appeal judges unconstitutional, in part because the judges do not receive sufficient oversight from the Director of the United States Patent and...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 31, 2019) - In the most important case to affect America Invents Act review proceedings this year, the Federal Circuit...more
Yesterday October 31, 2019, a 3-judge panel of the Federal Circuit (Judges Moore, Reyna, and Chen) issued a unanimous decision holding that the USPTO’s appointment practice for Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) violates the...more
n a decision with potential far-reaching implications, Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., the Federal Circuit held Thursday that appointments of Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s...more
On Thursday, a panel of the Federal Circuit found that PTAB judges have to date been unconstitutional appointments. The panel thinks that it has cured that issue going forward by severing a portion of Title 35 that allows for...more
Yesterday, in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., a panel of the Federal Circuit unanimously held that the appointment scheme for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) Administrative Patent Judges (APJ) is...more