Yesterday, the Supreme Court handed down its much-awaited decision—at least, much-awaited by people who care about patents and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)—in the consolidated U.S. v Arthrex, Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, and Smith & Nephew v. Arthrex cases. And while the multiple parties and multiple opinions might look complicated, it’s actually…
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…
On Monday, the Supreme Court granted, vacated, and remanded (GVRed) the Federal Circuit’s decision in Emerson Electric v. SIPCO in light of this year’s Thryv decision. Emerson was challenging the Federal Circuit’s overturning of the USPTO’s determination that the SIPCO patent was eligible for review under the covered business method (CBM) program. With the Court’s…
In today’s decision in Thryv v. Click-To-Call, the Supreme Court held that the AIA means what it says—decisions to institute an inter partes review “shall be final and nonappealable.”
Today, the Supreme Court issued two opinions in cases focused on the inter partes review (IPR) procedure. First, in Oil States v. Greene’s Energy Group, the Court upheld the constitutionality of IPR by a 7-2 vote. Second, in a more narrowly divided 5-4 decision in SAS v. Matal, the Court decided that the PTAB’s practice…
Last Friday, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in WesternGeco v. ION Geophysical. Essentially, the case asks whether, when components for a patented process or machine are manufactured in the U.S. and combined or used abroad, the profits lost due to the foreign activities can be considered lost profits and awarded as damages under U.S. patent…
On Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in two separate cases regarding inter partes review (IPR)—Oil States v. Greene’s Energy and SAS Institute v. Matal. In both Oil States and SAS, the Court appears to be sympathetic to the Patent Office’s arguments—and that’s good for everyone. Oil States The Oil States case focuses on whether…
TC Heartland continues to impact the world of patent litigation. I haven’t run the numbers yet on what’s happened since the decision came down, but just having read through the list of cases filed, the Eastern District of Texas certainly has seen a reduction in cases filed. Tomorrow morning, the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on…
This guest post was authored by Shawn Ambwani and Robert Jain. Shawn Ambwani is the COO and co-founder of Unified Patents. Robert Jain is an attorney at Unified Patents. This post provides a quantitative prediction of how TC Heartland may impact where patent litigation is filed, a topic I recently wrote about. Summary TC Heartland…
The Supreme Court decided TC Heartland v. Kraft on Monday. The decision addresses a procedural point with huge effects on patent litigation. The Problem The basic problem before this case was that it was very easy to pick the court you wanted to sue someone in; it’s called “forum shopping.” And (if you’re a…
