Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Proving that even the driest of constitutional issues can have significant practical effect, the U.S. Supreme Court recently heard argument in United States v. Arthrex. Before the Court was whether administrative judges of the PTAB have been appointed unconstitutionally.
Proving that even the driest of constitutional issues can have significant practical effect, the United States Supreme Court recently heard argument in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., et al., No. 19-1434. Before the Court was whether administrative judges (APJs) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) have been appointed unconstitutionally under the America Invents Act (2011), particularly in view of their adjudicatory function in connection with inter partes review proceedings (IPRs). More specifically, are such judges “principal officers” under the Appointments Clause of Article II, Section, Two, Clause Two of the U.S. Constitution such that, to pass muster, they must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate? Or are they instead “inferior” officers, properly appointed by the Commerce Secretary in consultation with the Director of the USPTO (Director)?
*May exclude premium content
By Bruce M. Wexler, Aaron P. Selikson, Ashley N. Mays-Williams and Susan S. Hwang
The decision appears to take steps to harmonize the prior cases that appropriately were guided by the Wands factors with the cases discussing the “full scope” of enablement that have engendered some confusion in the law.
By Siraj Husain
As intellectual property continues to influence business operations, more companies are considering defensive patent pools as a strategic measure to guard against threats that can stifle innovation and growth for both businesses and industries.
By Kelvin Han
Federal Circuit Wasn’t Chicken to Grant Equitable Intervening Right in Poultry Processing Equipment Case
A dispute between the two titans in the poultry processing equipment market led the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to construe the term “protection of investments” in 35 U.S.C. §252.
By Howard Shire and Shaleen J. Patel
On March 12, the Federal Circuit granted Janssen Pharmaceutica’s motion to dismiss Mylan Laboratories’ appeal and denied Mylan’s request for mandamus relief, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Mylan’s appeal.