Post-Arthrex PTAB Appeals Mostly Moving On From Constitutional Kerfuffle
By John Evans, Dave Maiorana, and Steven Nosco* – This is a follow up to our earlier post about the fallout from the Supreme Court’s June 21, 2021 decision in U.S. v. Arthrex, holding that PTAB APJs were unconstitutionally appointed because they exercised “principal...
Printed Publications: Simply Existing Isn’t Enough
By: Nick Bagnolo and Matt Johnson - When filing an IPR, petitioners should be careful not to take for granted one of the most fundamental aspects of challenging validity in this forum: Whether or not the relied upon references qualify as prior art. Pursuant to 35...
Disclaimer Before Institution May Not Thwart PGRs
By Jianle Wang,* Stephanie Mishaga, Matt Johnson - In Microsurgical Tech., Inc. v. Regents of the Univ. of Colorado, No. PGR2021-00026, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. June 16, 2021), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) held that disclaimed claims should be considered for...
NEWS: USPTO Issues First Director Review Decisions
By Matt Johnson - On July 6th and 7th, the USPTO made good on its promise to not wait for a confirmed director to begin Arthrex Director reviews, issuing its first denials of review requests. The full press release is below: USPTO issues first Director review...
District Court Highlights Prior PTAB Invalidation
By Zach Sharb and Josh Nightingale - On May 26, 2021, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denied both defendant Valve Corporation’s (“Valve”) motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, and plaintiff Ironburg Inventions...