Fed. Cir.: Don’t Expect PTAB to Do Your Work For You
By Albert Liou - The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Microsoft Corporation v. FG SRC, LLC, No. 2020-1928 (Fed. Cir. June 17, 2021), is a stark reminder that an IPR petitioner must always set forth its grounds in its petition with particularity. In the decision,...
A Cautionary Tale: Paying IPR Filing Fees Via Wire Transfer
By Alison Ibendahl and Joseph Beauchamp - A June 25, 2021 decision by the PTAB has clarified that when paying the filing fee via wire transfer, the inter partes review (“IPR”) petition filing date is based upon when the funds are made available to the USPTO. Toshiba...
USPTO updates Arthrex Q&As
By Matt Johnson - On July 20th, the PTAB provided additional clarifications regarding its views on Arthrex and how its interim procedures for requesting Director review will work for cases receiving Final Written Decisions on a going forward basis (i.e., not cases...
JONES DAY TALKS®: Supreme Court Rules on Constitutionality of Administrative Patent Judges
The United States Supreme Court has delivered its decision in U.S. v. Arthrex, which determined whether appointments of administrative patent judges to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) were constitutional. Jones Day’s Matt...
Most Arthrex Challengers Say “No Thanks” To Director Remand
By John Evans, Dave Maiorana, and Steven Nosco* - On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a decision in U.S. v. Arthrex, holding that PTAB APJs were unconstitutionally appointed because they exercised “principal officer” authority in their final written decisions,...