On February 13, 2024, the USPTO (PTO) published its guidance for inventions made with the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI). The PTO published the guidance in response to the directive it received in the Executive...more
The Constitution’s Article II “Appointments Clause” requires the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint “officers” of the United States. In United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the Supreme Court reviewed...more
6/24/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Executive Branch ,
Executive Powers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO
While all eyes have been trained on the confirmation hearings from last week, the Supreme Court made news in the IP world. The Court granted certiorari in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew (Nos. 19-1434, -1452, -1458), a decision...more
10/20/2020
/ 5 U.S.C. § 7513(a) ,
Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Director of the USPTO ,
Inferior Officers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Polaris Innovations Ltd v Kingston Technology Co ,
Principle Officers ,
SCOTUS ,
Severability Doctrine ,
Tenure ,
United States v Arthrex Inc
The Appointments Clause in Article II of the Constitution requires the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint “officers” of the United States. Many of us are familiar with this process as it applies...more
Under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), trademark holder who proves infringement may receive as damages an award of profits “subject to the principles of equity.” This phrase has divided the circuit courts going back several decades, with...more
7/1/2019
/ Appeals ,
Calculation of Damages ,
Certiorari ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Damages ,
Fashion Design ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Profits ,
Remand ,
Romag Fasteners v Fossil ,
SCOTUS ,
Split of Authority ,
Trademark Infringement ,
Trademark Litigation ,
Trademarks ,
Willful Infringement
Does it Open the Door to Challenge Patents Held by State Entities? -
In Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision denying Saint Regis from using sovereign...more
The Supreme Court recently handed down two highly anticipated decisions concerning inter partes review (IPR) challenge proceedings in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s...more
On January 8, 2018, the en banc Federal Circuit, in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., held that a PTAB decision upon institution as to whether a petition for inter partes review is timely under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) is...more
1/18/2018
/ § 315(b) ,
Appeals ,
En Banc Review ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Real Party in Interest ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Wi-Fi One
The Supreme Court, in a 7-1 decision written by Justice Alito, has held that laches cannot be invoked as a defense against any claim for damages in a patent case brought within the 6-year limitation on damages prescribed by...more
Patent infringers take note: clever defenses by ingenious litigation counsel may come too late to save you from an award of exemplary damages. On Monday, June 13, in Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics and Stryker Corp. v....more
6/16/2016
/ 35 U.S.C. § 284 ,
Abuse of Discretion ,
Enhanced Damages ,
Halo v Pulse ,
Highmark ,
Judicial Discretion ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Preponderance of the Evidence ,
SCOTUS ,
Standard of Proof ,
Standard of Review ,
Stryker v Zimmer ,
Willful Infringement