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,...
Court Awards Domino’s Extra Dough
By Andrea Beathard and Dave Cochran - Hot out of the oven! In a rare move, a district court recently gave Domino’s a two-for-one deal on attorney’s fees. In Ameranth, Inc., v. Domino’s Pizza Inc., No. 12CV0733 DMS (WVG), 2021 WL 2550057 (S.D. Cal. June 21, 2021), a...
Patent Need Not Be Valid To Be 102(e)(pre-AIA) Prior Art
By Sue Gerber and Matt Johnson - This blog has previously discussed the Federal Circuit’s decision in Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Baxter Corp. Englewood, --- F.3d ---, No. 2020-1937, 2021 WL 2176796 (Fed. Cir. May 28, 2021). See Telepharma Disconnect: Federal...
Take Care When Modifying the PTAB’s Default Protective Order
By Sachin Patel and Josh Nightingale - After an initial denial, the PTAB recently granted Unified Patents’ motions for entry of protective order and for seal in Unified Patents, LLC v. Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute, IPR2020-01048, Paper 33...
Boardside Chat Sheds Light On Arthrex Director Review Procedure
By Marlee Hartenstein and Matt Johnson - In its July 1st Boardside Chat, the PTAB discussed the Supreme Court’s recent Arthrex decision and the interim procedure for Director review. The panel included Drew Hirschfeld (Performing the functions and duties of the Under...