Last week, the Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. As explained in more detail in our June 24, 2021 post, after holding that “the unreviewable authority wielded by APJs during inter partes...more
Smith & Nephew and the United States filed their reply briefs on January 22. In its reply brief, the United States rebuts many of the positions taken by Arthrex in its initial merits brief. While Smith & Nephew, in its reply,...more
Opening briefs from Smith & Nephew and the United States have been filed with the Supreme Court in the Arthrex cases which, as previously discussed, granted the petitions for certiorari from Arthrex, Inc., Smith & Nephew...more
Now that the Supreme Court has granted cert in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, patent owners and petitioners alike may be wondering what ramifications the Court’s decision may have on their proceedings. In this article, we...more
11/18/2020
/ 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 Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Polaris Innovations Ltd v Kingston Technology Co ,
Principle Officers ,
SCOTUS ,
Severability Doctrine ,
Tenure ,
United States v Arthrex Inc