The Arthrex decision caused considerable confusion and excitement among the patent bar last week, partly because the issue decided by the Federal Circuit was a constitutional, and not a patent one. While we await next steps from the parties and the USPTO, IPWatchdog spoke to several constitutional law experts to get their take on the significance of the decision and the likelihood that the Supreme Court would be interested in the issue if appealed. All agreed that the Federal Circuit’s reasoning was correct, though one thought the Court’s approach to deciding that administrative patent judges (APJs) are inferior officers was slightly “unusual” in its focus strictly on the issue of “supervision” over other factors that the Supreme Court has found to be relevant to the distinction between inferior and principal officers. IPWatchdog posed three questions to the experts based on some of the issues that have been raised since Arthrex.
Litigation
- The New Copyright Small Claims Board Presents Problems for Copyright Owners and Small Businesses
- Dyk Splits from CAFC Panel on Application of Collateral Estoppel to Inter Partes Reexaminations
- CAFC Reverses In-Part, Vacates In-Part PTAB Finding of Patentability for Skin Cancer Detection Device
- UK Judge Backs Meghan Markle over Leaked Letter
- Federal Circuit Says Amgen’s Repatha® Patent Claims Require ‘Undue Experimentation’ to Practice
Recent Posts
- The New Copyright Small Claims Board Presents Problems for Copyright Owners and Small Businesses
- From Home Security to VoIP: Honoring Black Women Inventors of the Last Half-Century
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, February 26: Tillis Tells Biden to Oppose Anti-IP Efforts at WTO; China Patent Commercialization Jumps 2.5x During 13th Five-Year Plan; Federal Circuit Finds U.S. Navy Liable for Copyright Infringement
- Sarah Boone: the ‘Ironing Table’, Perfected
- How to Safeguard AI Technology: Patents versus Trade Secrets