shutterstock_1451034185_peter_fleming
3 November 2020PatentsJason Romrell, Derek McCorquindale and Brandon Andersen

Arthrex: who are you calling inferior?

On October 13, the US Supreme Court granted certiorari in Arthrex v Smith & Nephew, (case numbers 19-1434, -1452, and -1458). Accordingly, the Supreme Court will now consider whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) administrative patent judges (APJs) were unconstitutionally appointed.

Already registered?

Login to your account

To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.

Two Weeks Free Trial

For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk


More on this story

Patents
21 June 2021   The US Supreme Court has confirmed that judges for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) act as unconstitutional principal officers, and should therefore have been appointed by the President, in its final ruling in United States v Arthrex.
Patents
26 July 2021   The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has reversed two prior patent invalidation rulings from the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) owned by chemical company Chemours.
Patents
26 July 2021   Amid mounting speculation over the uncertainty caused by the US Supreme Court decision’s landmark decision in US v Arthrex, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has posted several updates issuing guidance. But lawyers tell WIPR that some key questions remain.