In the long-awaited decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is unconstitutionally structured, but held that the correct remedy is more limited than...more
6/22/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Executive Branch ,
Executive Powers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Remand ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO
The United States Supreme Court yesterday narrowed the scope of judicial review of proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In a 7-2 decision in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, the Court...more
4/21/2020
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
§314(a) ,
§314(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Vacated
Late in the day on December 16, 2019, three different petitions asked the full Federal Circuit to overturn a panel’s decision that members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) were appointed in violation of the...more
On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court preserved inter partes review (and similar procedures), but made a significant change in how it will be conducted. In Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group, the Court held...more
The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether inter partes review, the procedure that allows a Patent and Trademark Office tribunal to invalidate patents, is unconstitutional. A decision agreeing with the constitutional...more