Tag Archive for inter partes review

Cert Granted in Arthrex Case On PTAB Appointments

This week, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in a set of related cases between Arthrex and Smith & Nephew, as well as the federal government.  The cases revolve around one fundamental question: are judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) principal officers of the United States?  That question controls the constitutionality of their…

New Federal Circuit Appeal Claims PTAB Unconstitutional Because Of Fee Funding—But Ignores The Patent Examination Process

In a recently filed brief in the Federal Circuit case New Vision Gaming v. SG Gaming, the appellant argues that the PTAB is unconstitutional because the fees charged for the proceeding create a bias towards institution.  Specifically, New Vision Gaming claims that PTAB judges stand to benefit from institution and therefore it’s a violation of…

Meet the Western District of Texas—NPEs Certainly Have

For years, the Eastern District of Texas was the favored stomping ground for patent trolls.  Short times from filing to trial, shorter trials, judges with local rules friendly to patent plaintiffs, and a jury pool that tended to be friendly to plaintiffs all contributed to this.  It probably didn’t hurt that Eastern District judges were…

Thryv, the PTAB, and the APA

April’s Thryv decision by the Supreme Court clarified the nonappealability of institution decisions in inter partes review (IPR).  But by placing an absolute bar on appeal of institution decisions, Thryv effectively insulated the PTO’s choice of institution rules from appeal.  That’s not a good situation, and it’s one which the Director should actively seek to…

Polaris Concurrence Explains Why Arthrex Was Wrong, But Signals Federal Circuit Won’t Fix It

Today’s Federal Circuit decision in Polaris v. Kingston had an unsurprising outcome—in line with last year’s Arthrex decision, the PTAB’s determination was remanded back to the PTO for review in line with Arthrex.  But while the decision was brief, the concurrence—authored by Judge Hughes and joined by Judge Wallach—was not.  It explains, in detail, just…