5 Key Takeaways | Petitions for Expungement or Reexamination of the Trademark Modernization Act
JONES DAY TALKS®: Supreme Court Rules on Constitutionality of Administrative Patent Judges
JONES DAY TALKS®: Appointments of PTAB Judges Ruled Unconstitutional ... What Now?
In a closely watched decision, the Supreme Court has upheld the authority of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (Task Force), preserving the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) requirement that health plans cover preventive...more
In recent months, False Claims Act (FCA) defendants have increasingly sought to challenge the constitutionality of the statute’s qui tam provisions. This trend gained momentum following Justice Thomas’s dissent in United...more
On October 13, in Mobility Workx v. Unified Patents, LLC, the Federal Circuit rejected a series of due process challenges to the structure of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), leaving the PTAB to continue with...more
Addressing for the first time whether the Supreme Court of the United States’ recent decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. also applied to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), the US Court of Appeals for the...more
This issue of The PTAB Review begins with a brief summary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s most recent pronouncement about America Invents Act (AIA) reviews. It then provides an update on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s...more
On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in United States v. Arthrex, 19-1434, 19-1452, 19-1458. The issue in Arthrex was “whether the authority of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) to issue...more
This week, in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the Supreme Court vacated and remanded a decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”), holding that the administrative patent judges (“APJs”) at the...more
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
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
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that administrative law judges (ALJs) of the Securities and Exchange Commission are "Officers of the United States" under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and are not mere...more
On June 21, 2018, the Supreme Court held that Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) administrative law judges (“ALJs”) are “inferior officers” of the United States, subject to the Appointments Clause of the Constitution....more
On June 21, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Lucia v. SEC, Slip Op. No. 17-130. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) administrative law judges (ALJs) have traditionally been appointed by SEC staff members,...more
In Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC brought an administrative action before one of its administrative law judges, or ALJ’s, against Raymond Lucia for allegedly using misleading slide presentations to...more
On June 21, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission that the former practice of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of having its staff employees appoint...more
In the 2017-18 term, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide a number of potentially significant disputes relevant to businesses, including those involving constitutional protections, class actions and other corporate liability...more