On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court held that “35 U.S.C. § 6(c) is unenforceable as applied to the Director insofar as it prevents the Director from reviewing the decisions of the [Patent Trial and Appeal Board] PTAB on his own.” United States v. Arthrex, Inc., No. 19-1434 slip op. at 22 (U.S. June
On October 13, 2020, the Supreme Court granted petitions for certiorari filed by the United States (in No. 19-1434), Smith & Nephew, Inc. (in No. 19-1452), and Arthrex, Inc. (in No. 19-1458) regarding the appointments of the administrative patent judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. No date has been set to argue the cases, but the Court consolidated them and allotted one hour for argument time. Because the Court consolidated the cases for briefing and oral argument, it noted that “future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 19-1434.” On December 31, 2020, the Court set oral argument for March 1, 2021.
The various petitions were granted only to the extent of “Questions 1 and 2 as set forth in the July 22, 2020 Memorandum for the United States.” See Orders List at 2.
Question 1 asks “[w]hether, for purposes of the Appointments Clause, U.S. Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl. 2, administrative patent judges of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are principal officers who must be appointed by the President with the Senate’s advice and consent, or ‘inferior Officers’ whose appointment Congress has permissibly vested in a department head.”
Question 2 asks “[w]hether, if administrative patent judges are principal officers, the court of appeals properly cured any Appointments Clause defect in the current statutory scheme prospectively by severing the application of 5 U.S.C. § 7513(a) to those judges.”
Links to the briefs, and details of the briefing schedule, are below. [Updated 1/8/2021, to reflect most current filings, and argument date]…
Continue Reading Supreme Court grants certiorari in PTAB Appointments Clause cases
An order from the Federal Circuit on October 15 suggests the court may be close to holding that the PTAB has been operating in violation of the Appointments Clause, which could significantly disrupt PTO operations. The case presents important questions: whether the PTAB’s judges have been lawfully appointed, and if not, what happens to decisions that have been issued by panels of those judges?…
Continue Reading Constitutional Challenge under the Appointments Clause May Upend PTAB Proceedings
On July 30, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Celgene Corporation v. Peter (Nos. 2018-1167, -1168, -1169, and -1171), where the patent owner argued that the PTAB’s authority to cancel claims through IPR amounted to an unconstitutional taking as applied to pre-AIA patents. Numerous patent owners have raised similar challenges since the Supreme Court expressly reserved judgment on the issue in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, 138 S. Ct. 1365, 1379 (2018). The Federal Circuit’s decision puts that issue to rest (at least for now) and confirms that all issued patents remain subject to IPR.
The Celgene appeal arose …
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Rejects Latest Constitutional Challenge to Inter Partes Review
On June 10, 2019, the Supreme Court held that a federal agency is not a “person” who can file a petition for review of a patent under one of the three new proceedings created by the America Invents Act (“AIA”). Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, 587 U.S. ____, 2019 WL 2412904, at *3 (U.S. June 10, 2019) (“Return Mail“). Specifically, the Court held that federal agencies cannot file a petition for inter partes, post-grant, or covered business method review with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) (collectively, “PTAB proceedings”). Id.…
Continue Reading Supreme Court Prevents the Government from Challenging Patents in PTAB Proceedings
We previously published a post on the Federal Circuit’s decision in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Helsinn’s subsequent petition for certiorari.
On January 22, 2019, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit in a unanimous decision, holding that a commercial sale to a party who is required to keep the invention confidential can still constitute prior art …
Continue Reading Helsinn Update: The Supreme Court Preserves the Substance of the Pre-AIA On-Sale Bar