On December 2
nd, amicus briefs in support of Smith
& Nephew and the United States were filed with the Supreme
Court in the
Arthrex cases. There were also several amicus
briefs filed in support of no party. Previous articles have
discussed the decision by the Federal Circuit, the
Supreme Court s grant of certiorari (currently docketed as 19-1434), and the initial briefs from Smith & Nephew
and the United States.
The amicus briefs present a wide range of arguments related to
whether or not Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) are principal
officers or inferior officers, and if they are principal officers
what remedy should apply. John Harrison, a professor at the University
On December 2
nd, amicus briefs in support of Smith & Nephew and the United States were filed with the Supreme Court in the
Arthrex cases. There were also several amicus briefs filed in support of no party. Previous articles have discussed the decision by the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari (currently docketed as 19-1434), and the initial briefs from Smith & Nephew and the United States.
The amicus briefs present a wide range of arguments related to whether or not Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) are principal officers or inferior officers, and if they are principal officers what remedy should apply. John Harrison, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, questions the constitutionality of the CAFC decision to strike the down the part of the statute giving the patent judges for-cause removal protection.
Tuesday, December 15, 2020
On December 2
nd, amicus briefs in support of Smith & Nephew and the United States were filed with the Supreme Court in the
Arthrex cases. There were also several amicus briefs filed in support of no party. Previous articles have discussed the decision by the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari (currently docketed as 19-1434), and the initial briefs from Smith & Nephew and the United States.
The amicus briefs present a wide range of arguments related to whether or not Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) are principal officers or inferior officers, and if they are principal officers what remedy should apply. John Harrison, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, questions the constitutionality of the CAFC decision to strike the down the part of the statute giving the patent judges for-cause removal protection.