Arthrex: Unreviewable APJ Authority Incompatible with Appointments Clause
By Greg Castanias, Dave Cochran, Steph Mishaga, and Alex Chung - In United States v. Arthrex Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the Federal Circuit that the pre-Arthrex Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) regime of Administrative Patent Judge decisions being...
BREAKING: Supreme Court Arthrex Decided
On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Arthex stating: Today, we reaffirm and apply the rule from Edmond that the exercise of executive power by inferior officers must at some level be subject to the direction and supervision of an officer...
PTAB Declines to Exercise Discretion Post-Markman
By Hannah Mehrle and Matt Johnson - Petitioner (Apple, Inc.) filed a petition to institute inter partes on a patent owned by Koss Corporation (Patent Owner). The PTAB considered six factors from Fintiv to assess whether to exercise authority to deny institution under...
Telepharma Disconnect: Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB on Obviousness
By Chris Hodge and Carl Kukkonen - On May 28, the Federal Circuit reversed a PTAB inter partes review (“IPR”) decision that held Baxter Corporation Englewood’s (“Baxter’s”) claims were not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) obviousness based on three prior art...
Awkwardly Divided Petitions Triggers § 314(a) Denials
By Ashvi Patel,* Marlee Hartenstein, and Matt Johnson In Fantasia Trading LLC v. Cognipower LLC, IPR2021-00070, Paper 21 (May 20, 2021), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to institute inter partes review (IPR) where Petitioner Fantasia Trading LLC...