June 21, 2021
Authored and Edited by J. Derek McCorquindale; Jason L. Romrell; Trenton A. Ward; Joshua L. Goldberg
On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its much anticipated decision in United States v. Arthrex, holding: “Decisions by APJs must be subject to review by the Director.” Slip op. at 20. The Supreme Court determined that “Congress has assigned APJs ‘significant authority’ in adjudicating the public rights of private parties, while also insulating their decisions from review and their offices from removal.” Id. at 19. Rather than adopt the Federal Circuit's severance of tenure protection as the fix for Administrative Patent Judge exercising power that conflicted with the Appointments Clause, the Court instead held that the Director must have discretionary review of Administrative Patent Judge decisions. While Arthrex vests the Director with the discretion to review decisions rendered by APJs and reach his own decision, the Director's decision remains subject to Article III review before the Federal Circuit. By providing the Director with the “discretion to review decisions rendered by APJs,” the “President remains responsible for the exercise of executive power—and through him, the exercise of executive power remains accountable to the people.” Id. at 23.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court vacated the decision and remanded the case to the Federal Circuit for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Id. There is still uncertainty in light of the Supreme Court’s mixed decision and how it might be implemented. Regardless, we know at least the following:
Although the Supreme Court’s decision was limited to the matter before it, it seems likely that the USPTO will ultimately provide a process by which the Director has the discretion to review all final written decisions by the PTAB and/or parties have the ability to request review of a final written decision by the Director. Once a discretionary review process has been put into place for the Director, its impact on AIA trials before the PTAB is likely to be rare. Many open questions arise for active cases that have received or will receive a final written decision from the PTAB before a USPTO Director discretionary review process is enacted. For example, there are approximately 100 cases subject to a general stay Order by the PTAB in view of Arthrex. And there are also many cases that could be appealed or are already on appeal at the Federal Circuit. Parties in these cases will want to weigh the potential impact of the Supreme Court’s decision and adjust their strategy accordingly. For example, an additional discretionary review may only be viewed as advantageous in certain circumstances.
Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew , Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), Final Written Decision, America Invents Act (AIA)
Copyright © 2021 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
April 19, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.