Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued several rulings defining some of the contours of the impact of its decision last year in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, in which the Federal Circuit found that administrative patent judges (APJs) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) had been unconstitutionally appointed because they were principal officers under the Appointments Clause. The Federal Circuit’s recent decisions show several limits to the impact of Arthrex, which has spurred a large number of PTAB appeals since the Federal Circuit denied a motion to stay issuance of the Arthrex mandate this March, requiring the PTAB to conduct remanded proceedings under the case.
Litigation
- How French and California Contract Law Would Interpret SEP Patent Owner Obligations Under the ETSI Licensing Declaration
- NYIPLA Tells Supremes IP Lawyers Need Attorney-Client Privilege for Dual-Purpose Communications
- A Guide to Disclosures in Delaware Patent Litigation in the Face of Pending Federal Circuit Review
- CAFC Expressly States Patentee Disclaimers During IPR are Not Binding on the PTAB’s Patentability Analysis
- Disruptive Startups Cannot Survive in a Post-AIA Patent Landscape
Recent Posts
- Former Commerce, USPTO Heads Push for U.S. to Lead Opposition to Extending WTO’s COVID IP Waiver
- Patent Experts Urge Kanter to Reject Calls to Scrap Avanci Business Review Letter
- Answering the Question, ‘What is the Conservative View of Patent Rights?’
- USPTO, Copyright Office Joint Study on NFTs Could Help Dispel Confusion About IP Ownership in Media Content Underlying Digital Assets
- How French and California Contract Law Would Interpret SEP Patent Owner Obligations Under the ETSI Licensing Declaration