JONES DAY TALKS®: Supreme Court Rules on Constitutionality of Administrative Patent Judges
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
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
Year-End Analysis and Future Forecasts on the Most Significant Developments Impacting Post-Grant Proceedings. Attend ACI’s inaugural PTAB Practice Briefing virtually on December 2nd for in-depth discussions and year-end...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
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
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
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Arthrex, the Federal Circuit issued requests for briefing regarding the decision’s impact in pending PTAB appeals in which an Appointments Clause challenge had been...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
[co-author: Jay Bober, Summer Associate] 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...more
The long-awaited decision in United States v. Arthrex held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is inconsistent with the Constitution’s Appointments Clause because the administrative patent judges (APJs) that...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