直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

At the PTAB Blog

USPTO Director Grants First Director Review Petition, Vacating PTAB Decision

November 4, 2021

Authored and Edited by Brooke M Wilner; Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.

In June, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in United States v. Arthrex, 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021), holding that the USPTO Director has the discretion to review decisions rendered by PTAB judges.  In the wake of that decision, the USPTO established a procedure under which parties could request Director review of a PTAB decision.[1] 

On November 1—just over four months after the Supreme Court’s Arthrex decision—the Acting USPTO Director issued the first decision granting a request for review and vacating and remanding a Final Written Decision by the PTAB.

In Ascend Performance Materials Operations LLC v. Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., IPR2020-00349, Paper No. 57 (Nov. 1, 2021), Samsung petitioned the Director for review, arguing that the PTAB’s final written decision was improper on four grounds, including that the Board did not separately consider two claims of the subject patent, which were entitled to a provisional priority date and thus antedated an asserted prior art reference. 

In a short opinion, the Director granted Samsung’s request on that argument.  The Director emphasized that patent claims are awarded priority on a claim-by-claim basis, and that the PTAB had improperly failed to separately address the two claims that had an earlier priority date.  The Director vacated the PTAB’s decision and directed the PTAB to address (1) whether the two claims were entitled to the provisional priority date, and (2) whether those claims were patentable in view of the record.  The Director denied review as to Samsung’s remaining arguments.


[1] Further information on this procedure is available at https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/blogs/at-the-ptab-blog/after-arthrex-uspto-creates-interim-director-review-process.html.

Tags

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), United States v. Arthrex, Final Written Decision

Related Practices

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

Related Offices

London

Washington, DC

Contacts

Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.
Partner
London
+44 (0)20 7864 2814
Email

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.

Related Insights

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Conference

IAM Live: SEP Summit Global 2026

September 9-10, 2026

London

Seminar

IAM and WTR Live: Australasia IP Forum 2026

August 11, 2026

Melbourne

Webinar

U.S. Patent Case Law Update 2026

July 23, 2026

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands Infringement and Damages Judgment After Erroneous Verdict Form and Eligibility Analysis

July 8, 2026

Webinar

Inventive Step in Europe and the US: Comparing the UPC, EPO and National Approaches

July 8, 2026

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

“2” Does Not Provide Written Description Support for “1”: Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patent

July 8, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for March–May 2026

July 2, 2026

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue

July 1, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP