FedCircuitBlog

• U.S. v. Arthrex: Is Historical Practice of the USPTO Relevant? – One factor that the Supreme Court may consider in determining the appropriate remedy if necessary for the appointment of administrative patent judges is the historical practice of the USPTO.
• Apple Faces Dubious Federal Circuit on Patent Ownership Argument – Judges Chen and Linn of the Federal Circuit seemed to doubt the interpretation of the contract language that Apple is relying on to challenge Omni MedSci’s ownership of the allegedly infringed patents.
• Federal Circuit on TM Licensing: We’re Going to Enforce the Terms – The Federal Circuit held that the Army properly refused Authentic Apparel’s proposal to make certain Army-branded items, including the expansion of a clothing line featuring Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson.

Here’s the latest.

On Monday, March 1, 2021, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the closely-watched patent case, United States v. Arthrex. As we previewed a couple days prior to argument, two main issues were considered by the Court. First, for purposes of the Appointments Clause, whether administrative patent judges (APJs) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) are principal or inferior officers. And second, if APJs are indeed principal officers, whether the Federal Circuit properly cured any Appointments Clause defect through the remedy it provided. Here are the details.

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a much-anticipated patent case, United States v. Arthrex, Inc. The first issue for consideration by the Court is whether, for purposes of the Appointments Clause, administrative patent judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board are principal or inferior officers. The second issue is, if administrative patent judges are indeed principal officers, whether the Federal Circuit properly cured any Appointments Clause defect through the remedy it provided. This is our argument preview.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Court received new reply briefs in two cases that have been granted certiorari: (1) Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. and (2) United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
• The Court received five new petitions for writ of certiorari.
• One new response brief was filed with the Court in Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.
• One new amicus brief was filed by a non-profit advocacy organization, US Inventor, Inc., in the new case Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.
• Hikma filed a waiver of its right to respond to the petition in Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.
• Lastly, the Court denied the petitions for writ of certiorari in six cases.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• Two response and reply briefs were filed with the Court by the United States and by Smith & Nephew in a case that has been granted certiorari, United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
• Two amicus briefs were filed with the Court: the first by the New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA) in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, and the second by a non-profit advocacy organization, US Inventor, Inc., in Akeva L.L.C. v. Nike, Inc.
• One new waiver of right to respond was filed by Iancu in Samaranayake v. Iancu.
• The Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari in the case of InfoBionic, Inc. v. Cardionet, LLC.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• One new amicus brief was filed by the New Civil Liberties Alliance in a case that has been granted certiorari, United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
• The Court granted the petition for certiorari in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.
• The Court received eight new petitions for writ of certiorari.
• Three new reply briefs were filed with the Court in the following cases: (1) adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., (2) Micron Technology, Inc. v. North Star Innovations, Inc., and (3) InfoBionic, Inc. v. Cardionet, LLC.
• One new amicus brief was filed in Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation by Jonathan Stroud
• Three new waivers of right to respond were filed with the Court.
• Lastly, the Court denied the petitions for writ of certiorari in ten cases.

Here are the details.

• Supreme Court Denies Patent Petitions on Arthrex, Eligibility – The U.S. Supreme Court denied petitions for certiorari in two cases coming out of the Federal Circuit: IYM Technologies LLC v. RPX Corporation and Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and WhitServe LLC v. Donuts Inc.
• Amgen, GSK Urge Justices To Allow Patents On Genus Claims – A trio of amicus briefs filed on Monday urge the Supreme Court to grant Merck’s petition for certiorari and ensure that companies are able to patent genus claims.
• COVID-19 Vaccine Leader Moderna “Not Aware of Any Significant Intellectual Property Impediments” in Development of its Vaccine Despite Mixed Results at PTAB – As global leaders in COVID-19 vaccine development receive promising results from their clinical trials, the focus turns to whether legal intellectual property obstacles may impede vaccine distribution.  

Here’s the latest.

This month we highlight two scholarly articles related to the Federal Circuit.

• Retroactivity and Appointments
• Does Conjoint Analysis Reliably Value Patents?

Here are the details.

• Fed. Circ. Backs Sanofi, Regeneron PTAB Win Over Amgen – In a precedential opinion issued on Tuesday, the Federal Circuit upheld a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision invalidating Amgen’s patent aimed at treating inflammatory disorders.
• Patent Reviews in ‘Limbo’ As Supreme Court Takes Case on Judges – The U.S. Supreme Court recently announced that it will review the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew Inc.
• Fed. Circ. Denies Appeal of Order Backing Card IP Under Alice – On Wednesday, the Federal Circuit rejected an interlocutory appeal after a district court found that a patent describing a card that can be used as a debit card, a loyalty card, and a gift card all at once was not directed to an abstract idea.

Here’s the latest.

Yesterday the Supreme Court granted the petitions for certiorari in three related Arthrex cases: (1) United States v. Arthrex, Inc. (19-1434), (2) Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc. (19-1452), and (3) Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. (19-1458). The Court decided to consolidate the cases for briefing and oral argument and announced that all future filings and activity will be reflected on docket of No. 19-1434. The Court’s widely anticipated review will determine the fate of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) under the Appointments Clause. Here are the details.