The M.R. Pittman Group, LLC filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 22, 2023. This appeal stemmed from the dismissal of their bid protest.
Somebody’s Wrong: PTAB Must Resolve Conflicting Factual Testimony During IPR - In Google LLC v. IPA Technologies Inc., Appeal No. 21-1179, the Federal Circuit held that,.
ARTHREX, INC. v. SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. Before Moore, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: During vacancies of Director.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The Supreme Court held this week that the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO”) appointment of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) judges cannot be constitutionally enforced because the USPTO director does not have authority to review final PTAB decisions.
Smith & Nephew, Inc. and ArthroCare Corp. petitioned for inter partes review in the USPTO against Arthrex, Inc.’s patent on a surgical device. A PTAB panel consisting of three administrative patent judges (“APJs”) concluded that Arthrex’s patent was invalid. On appeal, the Federal Circuit determined that the appointment of APJs violated the Appointments Clause, and it severed the limitations on their removability. The Appointments Clause requires the President to appoint principal officers, who then must be confirmed by the Senate before taking office.