JONES DAY TALKS®: Supreme Court Rules on Constitutionality of Administrative Patent Judges
Director Review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) remains a hot topic in patent law. The Director first established an interim process for Director Review in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in United...more
On April 16, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding Director Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions in America Invents Act (AIA)...more
Federal Circuit Rule 36 has been criticized for leaving IP practitioners in the dark as it allows for the court to enter judgment of affirmance without the reasoned analysis of the Court. Generally, the Rule allows for a...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
In its 2021 Arthrex decision, the US Supreme Court found the Congressionally created inter partes review (IPR) system unconstitutional because it gave too much authority to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)...more
In Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Brent, No. 2019-1483, 2022 WL 4241665 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2022), the Federal Circuit faced an appeal that had bounced back and forth between the Court and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied mandamus relief, finding that a party is not entitled to petition the director for review of a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) decision denying institution of an...more
This week, we provide extensive write-ups about two consequential decisions issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning two procedural issues under the America Invents Act (“AIA”), both...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
In June 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in U.S. v. Arthrex, Inc., Nos. 19-1434, 19-1452, 19-1458 (June 21, 2021) (slip opinion). Authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court ruled that the statutory scheme...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
Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox invites you to a webinar, "Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2021 Decisions," on Thursday, February 17, 2022. In conjunction with the release of the firm's...more
After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its 15th annual list of top patent stories. For 2021, we identified nine stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe had...more
On November 18, 2021, the Commissioner for Patents and acting Director of the USPTO, Andrew Hirshfeld, issued the second order granting a Petition for Director Review since the interim Director Review process was implemented...more
In a recent decision, Commissioner Andrew Hirschfeld, who is currently performing the functions and duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO, issued the first post-Arthrex...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
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
The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021), at the end of its last term resulted in many cases with pending certiorari petitions that were based on Appointment Clause challenges to...more
This blog previously reported that on June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., holding – in Chief Justice Roberts’ 5-4 opinion – that “the unreviewable authority wielded...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