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.
- Will SCOTUS Tell Bad Spaniels to Roll Over?
- DOJ Takes Key Step Toward Breaking Up Big Tech with Antitrust Complaint Against Google
- Federal Circuit Rejects St. Jude’s Challenge to Validity of Snyders’ Heart Valve Patent
- CAFC Affirms District Court Dismissal of Declaratory Judgment Under Doctrine of ‘Abstention’
- Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Finding that Immunex Antibody Patent is Obvious
- American Innovators Express Support for Recent and Proposed Changes in Patent System
- This Week in Washington IP: Senate Commerce Committee to Grill Tech CEOs on Section 230, House Big Tech Antitrust Report and USPTO’s Quarterly TPAC Meeting
- Determining the Likelihood that an AI Patent Application Will Be Allowed at the USPTO
- Examining Samsung’s and LG’s LCD Patent Portfolios Following Decisions to Halt LCD Production
- Types of Subsequent Patent Applications in the United States (Part II)