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.
- Recapping Abitron at the High Court: The Long Arm of the…Lanham Act?
- Why the Supreme Court Should Weigh in on CMI Violations Under the DMCA
- Precooked Bacon, Artificial Intelligence Patents, and a Defense of the Common Law
- SCOTUS Kills Hope for Eligibility Certainty and Nixes Teva’s ‘Skinny Label’ Appeal
- Newman Says Moore’s Order Alleging She is Unfit for Court is ‘Riddled with Errors’
- UKIPO Issues New Trademark Guidance on NFTs, the Metaverse and Virtual Goods
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, May 26: USPTO Proposes Track Three Pilot Program for Micro Entity Patent Applicants; LeBron James Joins Taco Tuesday Trademark Battle; European Commission Releases List of Countries with Concerning IP Rights Protections
- Former Copyright Office GC Tells House IP Subcommittee His Counterpart Got It Wrong on AI Fair Use
- Clause 8: Tom Irving on Litigating the First Hatch-Waxman Case and Mentoring Thousands in the Patent Field
- IP Goes Pop! – Streamlining Copyright Disputes: The Copyright Claims Board