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.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), United States v. Arthrex, Final Written Decision
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.
At the PTAB Blog
Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a
§ 325(d) EPR Denial
May 28, 2026
At the PTAB Blog
IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026
May 26, 2026
At the PTAB Blog
May 20, 2026
Webinar
Changes at the PTAB from Settled Expectations to Real Parties in Interest to Director Involvement
May 18, 2026
Webinar
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.