United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
,
et al, Appeal No. 2019-1434 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2021)
The Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision today on the constitutionality of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The Court held that the Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) who make up the majority of the PTAB are not constitutionally appointed under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. To remedy this defect, a majority of the Court held that the Director has the authority to review PTAB decisions.
We covered the Federal Circuit’s original opinion in this case here, and have covered its impact on other cases routinely over the past year and a half.
Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC
, Appeal No. 2019-2164 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2021)
In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit revisited its decision in
Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc., 148 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998), often cited for the proposition that a patentee does not subject itself to personal jurisdiction in a forum merely by sending correspondence asserting patent infringement by a resident of the forum. On the facts presented, the Court found that a patentee’s negotiations with a California-headquartered corporation supported jurisdiction in the Northern District of California for the corporation’s declaratory judgment action, reversing the district court’s dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Latest Federal Court Cases - April 2021 #3 | Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC jdsupra.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from jdsupra.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc.
, Appeal Nos. 2019-1688, -1689 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2021)
In this week’s Case of the Week, Uniloc appealed from two consolidated IPR decisions finding multiple claims unpatentable as obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed, addressing several discrete issues. It first addressed the foremost issue of “whether 35 U.S.C § 314(d)’s ‘No Appeal’ provision bars this court’s review of the Board’s conclusion that under § 315(e)(1) a petitioner is not estopped from maintaining the IPR proceeding before it.” Next, the Court addressed multiple challenges to the Board’s estoppel conclusions. Finally, the Court addressed challenges to the Board’s findings of unpatentability on all claims and the Board’s claim construction of the term “attaches to.”
In only its third precedential patent case of 2021, the Federal Circuit addressed two discrete issues. It established further precedent concerning whether references on web pages and as.