Fallout from the Fintiv Precedential Decision
JONES DAY TALKS®: Appointments of PTAB Judges Ruled Unconstitutional ... What Now?
Since the US Patent & Trademark Office’s (PTO) decision to rescind former Director Vidal’s memo on procedures for post-grant proceedings where there is parallel district court litigation, Current Acting Director Coke Morgan...more
On February 10, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., where the Court held that a “a prior final written decision of the [PTAB] of unpatentability on separate...more
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently released its Fiscal Year 2024 roundup for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) America Invents Act (AIA) proceedings. This comprehensive report provides valuable...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...more
KEY TAKEAWAYS AND OUTLOOK FOR 2022 - Tracking with this era’s continuation and uncertainty trends―global supply chain disruption, innovation outpacing legislation, the unstoppable internet of [all the] things (IoT)―2022 is...more
In this second edition of Orrick’s quarterly series on the PTAB, we summarize the Arthrex decision, walk through the PTO’s post-Arthrex interim procedure for reviewing PTAB decisions, and discuss potential post-Arthrex...more
[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
Last week, we alerted you that the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals called all recent final inter partes review (IPR) decisions into question. Today, we alert you to increasing uncertainty in the wake of the Arthrex v. Smith...more
All final written decisions in inter partes reviews (IPRs) suffer from a constitutional defect according to a recent decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision suggests that the constitutional problem may...more
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
Recently, the PTAB issued its first ever final written decision in a post-AIA derivation proceeding in Andersen Corporation v. GED Integrated Solutions, Inc., Case DER2017-00007, Paper 57 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2019), finding that...more
In 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed close to 600 appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). That is the second highest number since starting to hear post-American Invents Act...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 Mylan v. Aurobindo the Circuit affirms the grant of a preliminary injunction based upon the infringement of one of the three patents in suit. However, the panel reverses the injunction as to the other two patents based on...more