Smith & Nephew petitioned for IPR of Arthrex’s ’907 patent, which claims a surgical device with an “eyelet” through which a suture is threaded. Smith & Nephew argued in relevant part that certain claims were anticipated by a...more
2/15/2023
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Anticipation ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Director of the USPTO ,
Federal Vacancies Reform Act ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Separation of Powers ,
Statutory Authority ,
Substantial Evidence ,
USPTO ,
Written Descriptions
As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more
2/8/2023
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
35 U.S.C. §315(e)(1) ,
Abuse of Discretion ,
Administrative Patent Judges ,
Administrative Procedure Act ,
America Invents Act ,
Anticipation ,
Apple ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arbitrary and Capricious ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Article III ,
Artificial Intelligence ,
Broadcom ,
Burden of Persuasion ,
Burden of Production ,
Confidentiality Agreements ,
Consent Order ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Covenant Not to Sue ,
Director of the USPTO ,
Doctrine of Equivalents ,
Estoppel ,
Evidence ,
Ex Partes Reexamination ,
Expert Testimony ,
Failure To Disclose ,
Federal Vacancies Reform Act ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Forum Selection ,
Google ,
Indefiniteness ,
Intel ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Inventions ,
Inventors ,
Joint Inventors ,
Jurisdiction ,
Lack of Jurisdiction ,
Likelihood of Confusion ,
Motion to Amend ,
Motion to Terminate ,
Obviousness ,
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting (ODP) ,
Parallel Proceedings ,
Patent Act ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Prosecution ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Preliminary Injunctions ,
Preponderance of the Evidence ,
Prior Art ,
Qualcomm ,
Real Party in Interest ,
Remand ,
Section 101 ,
Section 112 ,
Separation of Powers ,
Standing ,
Statutory Authority ,
Sua Sponte ,
Substantial Evidence ,
Testimony ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Trademark Application ,
Trademark Infringement ,
Trademark Litigation ,
Trademark Registration ,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ,
Trademarks ,
USPTO ,
Vacated ,
Written Descriptions
Arthrex appealed a final written decision from an inter partes review (IPR) where the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found all challenged claims of its patent anticipated. On appeal, Arthrex argued that the...more
2/11/2022
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Director of the USPTO ,
Executive Branch ,
Executive Powers ,
Inferior Officers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Principle Officers ,
United States v Arthrex Inc
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski]
Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
2/9/2022
/ § 314(d) ,
35 U.S.C. §315(e)(1) ,
Absolute Intervening Rights Doctrine ,
Abuse of Discretion ,
Administrative Patent Judges ,
Administrative Procedure Act ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arbitrary and Capricious ,
Article of Manufacture ,
Assignor Estoppel ,
Burden of Proof ,
Claim Construction ,
Collateral Estoppel ,
Commercial Success ,
Confidential Information ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Demand Letter ,
Denial of Institution ,
Design Patent ,
Director of the USPTO ,
Dismissals ,
Doctrine of Prosecution Disclaimer ,
Due Process ,
Equitable Estoppel ,
Estoppel ,
Evidence ,
Ex Partes Reexamination ,
Executive Branch ,
Executive Powers ,
Federal Rules of Evidence ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Forum Selection ,
FRCP 52(c) ,
GATT ,
Inferior Officers ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Reexamination ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Intervening Acts ,
Inventions ,
Issue Preclusion ,
Judicial Review ,
Lack of Authority ,
Lack of Jurisdiction ,
Likelihood of Success ,
Minerva Surgical Inc. v Hologic Inc. ,
Motion for Summary Judgment ,
Motivation to Combine ,
Nexus ,
Non-Disclosure Agreement ,
Nonobvious ,
Obviousness ,
Ornamental Design ,
Parallel Proceedings ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Filings ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Prosecution ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Petition for Writ of Certiorari ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Pre-GATT ,
Preliminary Injunctions ,
Principle Officers ,
Printed Publications ,
Prior Art ,
Real Party in Interest ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
Rule 36 ,
Scope of Review ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 325(d) ,
Sua Sponte ,
Substantial Evidence ,
Totality of Evidence ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO ,
Vacated ,
Writ of Mandamus
The US Supreme Court held in United States v. Arthrex that administrative patent judges’ ability to render final decisions on patentability on behalf of the Executive Branch is “incompatible with their status as inferior...more
6/21/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Director of the USPTO ,
Inferior Officers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Principle Officers ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO
When oral arguments commence in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., No. 19-1434 (U.S.) on Monday, March 1, William H. Milliken, a director in Sterne Kessler’s Trial & Appellate Practice Group, will be live tweeting updates from...more
2/26/2021
/ 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 ,
Oral Argument ,
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
In October 2020, the Supreme Court agreed to review the Federal Circuit’s holding in Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019), that the scheme for appointing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s...more
2/11/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Certiorari ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Inferior Officers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Principle Officers ,
SCOTUS ,
Severability Doctrine ,
Tenure ,
United States v Arthrex Inc
[co-author: Kathleen Wills]
Last year, the global COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for American courts. By making several changes, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was able to...more
2/3/2021
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Adidas ,
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ,
Administrative Patent Judges ,
Administrative Proceedings ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Appointments Clause ,
Certiorari ,
Claim Construction ,
Comcast ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Covenant Not to Sue ,
Denial of Certiorari ,
Dismissals ,
Due Process ,
Estoppel ,
Evidence ,
FanDuel ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Google ,
Hewlett-Packard ,
Hulu ,
Inter Partes Reexamination ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Judicial Review ,
Lack of Authority ,
Motion to Amend ,
Nike ,
Obviousness ,
Oral Argument ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Precedential Opinion ,
Real Party in Interest ,
Section 337 ,
Subject Matter Jurisdiction ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO
Since the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s inception, it has faced questions regarding its constitutionality. This past year was no different. In 2019, aggrieved patent owners raised numerous constitutional challenges...more
3/28/2020
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appeals ,
Appointments Clause ,
Article III ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Due Process ,
Fifth Amendment ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Oil States Energy Services v Greene's Energy Group ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Precedential Opinion ,
Severability Doctrine ,
Takings Clause
Powerful. Resilient. Ever-evolving. These characteristics of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) were on full display in 2019. This past year the PTAB received more than 1,300 inter partes review (IPR), post grant review...more
3/5/2020
/ Claim Construction ,
Concurrent Litigation ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Design Patent ,
Estoppel ,
Evidentiary Standards ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion to Amend ,
Motion To Stay ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Trial Practice Guidance
Arthrex appealed a final written decision from an inter partes review (IPR) where the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found all challenged claims of its patent anticipated. On appeal, Arthrex argued for the first time...more
2/12/2020
/ Administrative Hearings ,
Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appeals ,
Appointments Clause ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Fifth Amendment ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Officers of the United States ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Remand ,
Removal At-Will ,
Retroactive Application ,
Secretary of Commerce ,
Severability Doctrine ,
Takings Clause ,
Vacated
Yesterday, in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., a panel of the Federal Circuit unanimously held that the appointment scheme for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) Administrative Patent Judges (APJ) is...more
11/1/2019
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appeals ,
Appellate Rules ,
Appointments Clause ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Director of the USPTO ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Judicial Appointments ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Pending Litigation ,
Presidential Appointments ,
Principle Officers ,
Remand ,
Remedial Actions ,
Removal At-Will ,
Secretary of Commerce ,
Senate Confirmation Hearings ,
Severability Doctrine ,
USPTO ,
Vacated