Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Retired Judges File Amicus Brief in Support of Judge Newman
- Hikma v. Amarin at the Supreme Court: The Parties’ Opening Briefs
- Teva Pharmaceuticals International v. Eli Lilly & Co. (Fed. Cir. 2026)
- USPTO Extends Artificial Intelligence Search Automated Pilot Program (ASAP!)
- USPTO Announces That It Has Turned the Corner on Unexamined Application Backlog
about
Category: Patent Trial and Appeal Board
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — On September 10th, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board rendered its decision on the parties' Motions in Interference No. 106,115 (see "PTAB Decides Parties' Motions in CRISPR Interference"). Perhaps the decision of most immediate significance was the Board's decision denying the Senior Party's (The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and the…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Earlier today, the Federal Circuit vacated the final written decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review involving Appellant Snyders Heart Valve LLC and Appellee St. Jude Medical, LLC, and remanded for proceedings consistent with the Court's decision in Arthrex, Inc.…
-
By Donald Zuhn — In a notice published in the Federal Register last month (85 Fed. Reg. 39888), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced that it was initiating a Fast-Track Appeals Pilot Program, to provide for the advancement of applications out of turn in ex parte appeals before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. …
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Arthrex recently filed a certiorari petition with the Supreme Court in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew Inc. (a case related to Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., which has also the subject of petitions from the U.S. government and Smith & Nephew). The Questions Presented are: 1. Whether the…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Last fall, the Federal Circuit decided in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. that Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) serving on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) were principal officers and thus had been improperly appointed under the Appointments Clause, and accordingly vacated a PTAB determination in an inter…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — While the Federal Circuit's decision last fall in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. raised issues about the appointment of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) serving on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), it should be remembered that it also wiped out a PTAB decision in favor of Smith &…
-
Federal Circuit Extends Arthrex to Patent Prosecution By James Lovsin and Alexa Giralamo* — This week, the Federal Circuit extended its holding in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., that administrative patent judges ("APJs") were improperly appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause, to ex parte proceedings in In re Boloro Global Limited. Under…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — On Monday, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) heard oral argument (remotely) from Senior Party the Broad Institute (and its partners as Senior Party, Harvard University and MIT) and Junior Party the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Vienna; and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, "CVC") on the substantive motions…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — On April 20th, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) set oral argument in Interference No. 106,115, between Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (collectively, "Broad") and Junior Party the University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, "CVC") to…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — On April 17th, CVC filed its Reply to Broad's Opposition (filed on April 9th) to CVC's Miscellaneous Motion No. 2 to Exclude Evidence filed (on April 2nd), in Interference No 106,115 between Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (collectively, "Broad") and Junior Party…
Patent Docs 