Call 855-808-4530 or email Gro[email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In June 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in U.S. v. Arthrex, Inc., Nos. 19-1434, 19-1452, 19-1458 (June 21, 2021) (slip opinion). 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.
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
By Christopher P. Bussert
This article explores developments (both positive and negative) in the post-TMA world in which courts have wrestled with implementation of the presumption of irreparable harm in trademark cases.
By Richard L. Hathaway
Recognizing that U.S. “copyright law protects only works of human creation,” the court determined that the Copyright Office “acted properly in denying copyright registration for a work created absent any human involvement.”
By Catherine Nyarady and Crystal Parker
This case has important implications not only for trademark registrations, but also potentially in determining collisions between trademark rights, rights of publicity, and freedom of speech considerations in future cases.
By Stephen M. Kramarsky and John Millson
Intellectual property laws, including copyright, patent, trademark and trade secret laws can provide avenues for companies to protect their IP. But it’s not always clear what assets are protectable and what are not.