SCOTUS vacates and remands Arthrex; preserves PTAB
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

SCOTUS vacates and remands Arthrex; preserves PTAB

adobestock-87599523.jpeg

In a five to four ruling, the US Supreme Court decided that PTAB judge appointments were unconstitutional, and issued a different fix to the Federal Circuit's

The US Supreme Court ruled today in a five to four judgment that the appointment of administrative patent judges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board was unconstitutional, noting that the unreviewable authority they wielded was incompatible with their appointment as inferior officers.

In its judgment in US v Arthrex and Arthrex v Smith & Nephew, the high court held that this problem could be fixed by giving the USPTO director more power to overturn the PTAB’s decisions, thus leaving the board intact.

The court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

The case will now be sent back to the acting director, Drew Hirshfeld, for him to determine whether to rehear the petition filed in this particular case.

Intellectual property stakeholders had worried that SCOTUS would find that the Federal Circuit’s remedy was not appropriate and not issue a fix of its own, which would throw all inter partes review (IPR) petitions into the realms of uncertainty.

This case started in 2015 when UK multinational medical equipment firm Smith & Nephew filed several IPRs against Germany-based medical device company Arthrex. The PTAB found Arthrex’s patent (number 9,179,907) to be invalid.

Arthrex appealed that decision to the Federal Circuit on the basis that the appointment of the board’s APJs by the secretary of commerce violated the appointments clause of the US constitution.

The Federal Circuit ruled in October 2019, in an opinion written by Judge Kimberly Ann Moore, that APJs were indeed principal officers, not inferior officers, and severed a tenure provision protecting these judges at the PTAB to remedy the problem.

The Federal Circuit denied a rehearing en banc of the case in March 2020.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Keith Bergelt, CEO of the Open Invention Network, explains why AI technologies were not part of an update to its cross-licensing project
Kirkland & Ellis partners explain how they secured the dismissal of a patent case in which the other side had lied under oath
Managing IP understands the association had been considering other options, including Madrid or Vienna, after concerns were raised over Dubai’s positions on various rights
Chris Marando tells Managing IP that he's excited to work on PTAB matters at Perkins Coie, which recently hired another lawyer from his former firm
To mark Pride month, Darren Smyth, cochair of IP Out, says the legal profession must not forget that some members still face exclusion and hostility
Lawyers say the opening of the Milan central division this month is likely to boost activity in Italy, which has been modest so far
Sharon Urias tells us why she still has to explain the difference between copyright and trademarks
In the latest episode, Managing IP is joined by Gwilym Roberts and Lee Davies from the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys to discuss the UPC, IP ministers, diversity and more
Lawyers at Tomkins and Bomhard IP explain how they finally secured victory over McDonald’s in long-running ‘Big Mac’ trademark dispute
Technical excellence is paramount for clients looking to hire new advisers, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 corporate counsel
Gift this article