Follow Us Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Intellectual Property Litigation Patent Litigation

UPDATE: The Supreme Court 'Arthrex’s' Decision In Action

Although several direct appeals for PTAB review or rehearing were made by parties who had received adverse outcomes at PTAB hearings after the Arthrex decision, on November 3, the first rehearing was granted by the PTO acting director.


Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Back in June 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in U.S. v. Arthrex, Inc., Nos. 19-1434, 19-1452, 1901458 (June 21, 2021) (slip opinion). In the decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court ruled that the statutory scheme appointing Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) administrative patent judges (APJs) to adjudicate IPRs violates the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the Court concluded that, because APJ decisions in IPR proceedings are not reviewable by a presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed officer, such determinations are not compatible with the powers of inferior officers.

To continue reading,
become a free ALM digital reader

Benefits include:

*May exclude premium content

Read These Next