Amster Rothstein & Ebenstein, LLP - Intellectual Property Law http://www.arelaw.com/ Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein is a well-established mid-sized legal firm engaged exclusively in the practice of intellectual property law, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, unfair competition and related matters. Since our inception in 1953, we have earned an impressive record of successes for our clients, from individuals to multinational corporations, both domestic and worldwide. These successes are borne of the vigorous application of legal expertise, innovation and objective analysis. en Mon, 26 Jul 2021 13:14:33 +0000 Floodlight Design CMS Charles R. Macedo Publishes Updated Practical Law Practice Note on Understanding PTAB Trials: Key Milestones in IPR, PGR and CBM Proceedings<br> http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/practicallaw1014/ <a href="https://www.arelaw.com/images/file/Understanding%20PTAB%20Trials%20Key%20Milestones%20in%20IPR%20PGR%20and%20CBM%20Proceedings%20(3-578-8846)%20July%202021.pdf" target="_blank">This Practical Law Practice Note</a>&nbsp;by Charley Macedo discusses key milestones in post-grant patentability challenges at the US Patent and Trademark Office under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). It reviews typical timelines and procedures at key milestones in inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR) and covered business method (CBM) patentability challenges before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).<br /><br /><a href="https://www.arelaw.com/images/file/Understanding%20PTAB%20Trials%20Key%20Milestones%20in%20IPR%20PGR%20and%20CBM%20Proceedings%20(3-578-8846)%20July%202021.pdf" target="_blank">Click here to read the full article.</a> Wed, 07 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/practicallaw1014/ Practical Law Practice Note by Charles R. Macedo on Appealing Patent Trial and Appeal Board Final Written Decisions http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/practicallaw020218/ This Practical Law&nbsp;Practice Note by Charley Macedo discusses procedural and strategic considerations involved in appealing final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in&nbsp;<em>inter partes</em>&nbsp;review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR), and covered business method (CBM) patentability challenges under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA).&nbsp;<br /><br />The article also explores grounds, timelines and practical considerations for requesting rehearing of a final written decision before the PTAB and appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.<br /><br /><br /><a href="https://www.arelaw.com/images/file/Appealing%20Patent%20Trial%20and%20Appeal%20Board%20Final%20Written%20Decisions%20(w-006-9741)%20July%202021.pdf" target="_blank">Appealing Patent Trial and Appeal Board Final Written Decisions</a>&nbsp; Tue, 06 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/practicallaw020218/ The NYIPLA PTAB Committee and Young Lawyers Committee to Examine the New Director Review Process After Arthrex and Appeals of Patent Trial and Board Final Written Decisions After Arthrex at August 3 Meeting http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/the-nyipla-ptab-committee-and-young-lawyers-committee-to-examine/ Join the <a href="https://www.nyipla.org/assnfe/ev.asp?ID=1401">New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA) PTAB Committee and Young Lawyers Committee on August 3</a> as a follow up to last month's webinar on Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Trial Milestones and examine the new Director Review process after Arthrex and Appeals of Patent Trial and Board Final Written Decisions After Arthrex.<br /><br />In <a href="https://www.nyipla.org/assnfe/ev.asp?ID=1401">this interactive presentation</a>, the PTAB Committee and Young Lawyers Committee are thrilled to be joined by a group of distinguished members of the USPTO to share insights on the new Director Review process after Arthrex. PTAB Committee co-chair Charley Macedo, coordinator Chris Lisiewski, and other members of the PTAB Committee along with Young Lawyers Committee co-chair Jenna Deneault will then explain motion for reconsideration options, appeal options, and key milestones with appeal process along with the types of arguments that can be heard/not heard after the Supreme Court's recent decision in Arthrex.<br /><br />There will be a Q&amp;A session afterward. This event is free to all NYIPLA members, PTAB Committee members and Young Lawyers Committee members. Non-NYIPLA members can join for $30. 1 CLE credit will be available for attendees. To register for the event, please contact admin@nyipla.org. <br /><br />Remember to re-register for the PTAB Committee and the Young Lawyers Committee if you have not yet done so in the new year.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.nyipla.org/assnfe/ev.asp?ID=1401">Register here</a>. Tue, 03 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/the-nyipla-ptab-committee-and-young-lawyers-committee-to-examine/ Event Spotlight: Brian Amos and Charley Macedo to Speak at LES Annual Meeting on Best Practices in Licensing Data and Software for AI/ML Applications http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/event-spotlight-brian-amos-and-charley-macedo-to-speak-at-les-an/ &nbsp;On September 27 at 1pm to 2pm ET, Brian Amos and Charley Macedo, along with other panelists will speak about &quot;Best Practices in Licensing Data and Software for AI/ML Applications at the LES Annual Meeting. The program will be held virtually this year.&nbsp;<br /><br />For more information about the conference, visit the <a href="https://members.lesusacanada.org/events/EventDetails.aspx?id=1375039">LES Annual Meeting web site</a>.&nbsp; Mon, 27 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/event-spotlight-brian-amos-and-charley-macedo-to-speak-at-les-an/ Event Spotlight: David P. Goldberg to Speak at NYIPLA Annual Trademark and Copyright Series http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/event-spotlight-david-p-goldberg-to-speak-at-nyipla-annual-trade/ David P. Goldberg will be a featured speaker at the New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA)'s Annual Copyright &amp; Trademark CLE Series. <br /><br />David and his co-panelists will present on the Google v. Oracle case on July 27. David'a co-panelists include:<br /><ul><li>Bruce Baber, Partner, King &amp; Spalding LLP</li><li>Eugene Chang, Partner, Willkie Farr &amp; Gallagher LLP</li></ul><br /> <a href="https://www.nyipla.org/assnfe/ev.asp?ID=1399">Learn more and register</a>. Tue, 27 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/event-spotlight-david-p-goldberg-to-speak-at-nyipla-annual-trade/ Event Spotlight: Hot Topics in U.S. Copyright Law with Oxford University Press http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/event-spotlight-hot-topics-in-us-copyright-law-with-oxford-unive/ In this webinar, moderated by partner Charley Macedo, and joined by a team of IP attorneys from Amster, Rothstein &amp; Ebenstein, including partners Anthony Lo Cicero, Chester Rothstein, Douglas Miro, Holly Pekowsky, and associates David P. Goldberg, Christopher Lisiewski, Olivia Harris and Chandler Sturm, Devin Garrity and law clerk Thomas Hart will summarize and discuss some of the most significant judgments and decisions in US federal copyright law issued from 1 January 2020 through 31 December 2020, and in some instances in January 2021.<br /><br />The webinar will review how US federal copyright law has changed over the past year with respect to:<br /><ul><li>US states' rights (e.g., state sovereign immunity and state codes);</li><li>embedded links and photographs in the context of copyright law;</li><li>street art, including murals and graffiti art; and</li><li>a discussion of Google LLC v. Oracle;</li><li>the CASE Act, and the future of copyright law in 2021; and more.</li></ul><br />There will be a Q&amp;A session afterward.<br /><br />This event is free to all attendees, and 1 NYS CLE credit will be available for attendees who return the <a href="/images/file/CLE%20Evaluation%20Form%20Hot%20Topics%20in%20US%20Copryight%20Law%202020.pdf" target="_blank"><strong>CLE questionaire</strong></a>.<br /><br /><a href="/images/file/Hot%20Topics%20in%20US%20Copyright%20Law%202020%20Handout.pdf" target="_blank"><strong>Hot Topics in US Copyright Law 2020 Handout</strong></a>&nbsp;(click here for handouts)<br /><br />For more information please contact <a href="mailto:cmacedo@arelaw.com">Charley Macedo</a> by email.<br /><br /><br /><strong>Zoom log in info:&nbsp;</strong><br /><br />Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device:<br /> Please click this URL to join. <a href="https://us06web.zoom.us/j/85071468039?pwd=Z3FGbmZabDRoOW5NYUQwRzFJb1JVUT09">https://us06web.zoom.us/j/85071468039?pwd=Z3FGbmZabDRoOW5NYUQwRzFJb1JVUT09</a><br /> Passcode: ARECopyrt Thu, 15 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/event-spotlight-hot-topics-in-us-copyright-law-with-oxford-unive/ Charley Macedo and Chandler Sturm Discuss Supreme Court Decision in Arthrex Case on NYIPLA Podbites Podcast http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/charley-macedo-and-chandler-sturm-discuss-supreme-court-decision/ In the latest New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA) <a href="https://bit.ly/3yAVb4W">Podbites episode</a>, ARE lawyers Charley Macedo and Chandler Sturm discuss the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Arthrex. Learn what the SCOTUS said about PTAB APJs and how the Director of the USPTO now can review final written decisions in inter partes review proceedings.<br /><br />Charley is the co-chair of the NYIPLA PTAB Committee and Chandler is a member of the NYIPLA Young Lawyers Committee.<br /><br /><a href="https://bit.ly/3yAVb4W">Listen to the podcast</a>. Thu, 08 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/charley-macedo-and-chandler-sturm-discuss-supreme-court-decision/ Patent Law Alert: Supreme Court Upholds Assignor Estoppel Doctrine But Narrows Its Scope http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/patent-law-alert-supreme-court-upholds-assignor-estoppel-doctrin/ <div>On June 29, 2021, in <i>Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.</i>, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the doctrine of assignor estoppel (which prevents inventors from challenging the validity of patents that they have assigned to third parties) as a defense in patent infringement cases, but limited the doctrine to apply only when the assignor&rsquo;s claim of invalidity in an infringement suit contradicts &ldquo;explicit or implicit representations&rdquo; made in assigning patent rights. <i>Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.</i>, No. 20&ndash;440, <a name="_Hlk75941370">594 U.S. ___, at 1</a> (June 29, 2021).<br /><br /> </div> <div>Justice Kagan, who wrote the opinion for the majority, was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kavanaugh in the 5-4 majority opinion. Justice Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch and Justice Alito wrote a separate dissenting opinion as well.<br />&nbsp;</div> <div><b>Background</b></div> <div>In the late 1990s Csaba Truckai invented a device to treat abnormal uterine bleeding. Truckai filed a patent application including claims covering the &ldquo;moisture-permeable applicator&rdquo; head of the device, and subsequently assigned the application, along with any future continuation applications, to his company Novacept, Inc. The patent application was later issued as a registration by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).<br /><br /> </div> <div>In 2004, Hologic, Inc. acquired Novacept along with its patent portfolio and patent applications. Later in 2008, Truckai left Novacept, and started a new company, Minerva Surgical, Inc., where he would develop a new device with an applicator head that was &ldquo;moisture impermeable.&rdquo; Truckai&rsquo;s company filed, and was granted, a patent covering this device. Around this time, Hologic filed a continuation application claiming priority to the original application, and including claims broadly covering applicator heads in general. This continuation application was granted by the PTO, and the patent issued in 2015.<br /><br /> </div> <div>Almost immediately, Hologic sued Minerva for patent infringement. In its defense, Minerva asserted that the 2015 continuation patent was invalid because the new, broad claim covering applicator heads did not match the written description of the original patent, which addressed only moisture-permeable applicator heads. In response, Hologic invoked the doctrine of assignor estoppel.<br /><br /> </div> <div>Assignor estoppel is a judicially created equitable doctrine which dates back to 18th-century England that bars the assignor of a patent from contesting the patent&rsquo;s validity at a later time. The doctrine essentially prevents the seller of a patent from later arguing that what was sold was &ldquo;worthless.&rdquo; <i>Scott Paper Co. v. Marcalus Mfg. Co.</i>, 326 U.S. 249, 259 (1945). The Supreme Court first considered the doctrine in <i>Westinghouse</i>, where it stated that although the doctrine has limits, it is grounded in sound principles of fair dealing and equity. <i>Westinghouse Elec. &amp; Mfg. Co. v. Formica Insulation Co.</i>, 266 U.S. 342, 3501-51 (1924).<br /><br /> </div> <div>As is relevant here, Hologic argued that because Truckai had assigned the original patent application, both he and Minerva were precluded from asserting an invalidity defense. The District Court agreed that assignor estoppel barred Minerva&rsquo;s invalidity defense. The Federal Circuit affirmed, applying assignor estoppel as a strict, bright-line rule, adding that it was irrelevant that the asserted patent issued from an application filed long after the assignment of the original invention. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari to consider the validity of assignor estoppel as a defense.<br /><br /> </div> <div><b>Majority Opinion </b></div> <div>At the Supreme Court, Minerva set forth three arguments: (1) that assignor estoppel should be deemed abandoned based on the language of Section 282(b) of the Patent Act of 1952; (2) that two post-<i>Westinghouse </i>decisions have already set assignor estoppel aside; and (3) that contemporary patent policy supports the elimination of assignor estoppel.<br /><br /> </div> <div>The Court rejected Minerva&rsquo;s first argument that assignor estoppel should be deemed abandoned based on the plain language of Section 282(b) of the Patent Act of 1952, which states in part that the &ldquo;[i]nvalidity&rdquo; of a patent &ldquo;shall be [a] defense[] in <i>any</i> action involving&rdquo; infringement. 35 U.S.C. &sect; 282(b) (emphasis added).<br />&nbsp;</div> <div>The Court reasoned that this argument was untenable because similar language was in place when the <i>Westinghouse</i> case was decided, analogous reasoning would foreclose a whole panoply of common law preclusion doctrines (including equitable estoppel, collateral estoppel, <i>res judicata</i>, and law of the case) and conflict with other Supreme Court precedent, and that it would subvert Congressional intent<i>. See Astoria Fed. Sav. &amp; Loan Ass&rsquo;n v. Solimino</i>, 501 U.S. 104, 108 (1991) (holding that Congress &ldquo;legislate[s] against a background of common-law adjudicatory principles&rdquo; and expects those principles to &ldquo;apply except when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident&rdquo;).<br />&nbsp;</div> <div>The Court also rejected Minerva&rsquo;s second argument that its decisions in <i>Scott Paper Co. v. Marcalus Mfg. Co., </i>326 U.S. 249 (1945),and <i>Lear, Inc. v. Adkins</i>, 395 U.S. 653 (1969),eliminated the basis for assignor estoppel. These decisions, the Court clarified, simply &ldquo;police the doctrine&rsquo;s boundaries.&rdquo; <i>Minerva</i>, slip op. at 11.</div> <div>The Court rejected Minerva&rsquo;s policy argument as well, stating that the prevention of unfair dealing outweighs the public interest in weeding out bad patents.<br /><br /> </div> <div>Although the Court did not accept Minerva&rsquo;s arguments, the Court did not affirm the Federal Circuit&rsquo;s bright-line application of the doctrine either. Noting that the doctrine &ldquo;comes with limits,&rdquo; the Court explained that the doctrine &ldquo;should apply only when its underlying principle of fair dealing comes into play.&rdquo; <i>Id</i>. at 14. For instance, when an assignor warrants that a patent is valid, his later denial of validity breaches norms of equitable dealing. However, when the assignor has made neither explicit nor implicit representations in conflict with an invalidity defense, then there is no issue of unfairness. <i>Id. </i>at 17. This holding narrows bright-line applications by lower courts of the assignor estoppel doctrine. For example, the post-assignment amendment of patent claims may remove the rationale for applying assignor estoppel. In this case, if Hologic&rsquo;s asserted claim is materially broader than the claims that Truckai assigned, then Truckai could not have warranted its validity in his assignment.<br /><br /> </div> <div>The Court vacated the judgment of the Federal Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings.<br />&nbsp;</div> <div><b>Barrett Dissent</b></div> <div>Justice Barrett dissented, reasoning that, contrary to the majority&rsquo;s discussion, the <i>Westinghouse </i>doctrine was actually not well-settled at all. In fact, she alleged, &ldquo;the doctrine of assignor estoppel was in a confused state by 1952&rdquo;. <i>Minerva</i>, 594 U.S. ___, at 12 (June 29, 2021) (Barrett, J., dissenting). Justice Barrett further commented that the Patent Act of 1952 does not mention or incorporate the equitable doctrine of assignor estoppel, and therefore <i>Westinghouse </i>cannot apply. Her dissent was joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch.<br />&nbsp;</div> <div><b>Alito Dissent</b></div> <div>Justice Alito, in a separate dissent, stated that the question presented in the case could not be decided without first determining whether <i>Westinghouse </i>should be overruled. Because &ldquo;not one word in the patent statutes supports assignor estoppel,&rdquo; he stated that the majority&rsquo;s holding should not stand. <i>Minerva</i>, 594 U.S. ___, at 1 (June 29, 2021) (Alito, J., dissenting).<br /><br /> </div> <div><b>Conclusion</b></div> <div>In <i>Minerva</i>, the Court upheld the validity of the doctrine of assignor estoppel, but clarified that the doctrine only applies when &ldquo;the assignor&rsquo;s claim of invalidity contradicts explicit or implicit representations he made in assigning the patent.&rdquo; <i>Minerva</i>, slip op. at 1.<br />&nbsp;</div> <div>We will continue to monitor this decision&rsquo;s impact on patent litigation and to report on new developments regarding the doctrine of assignor estoppel. In the meantime, feel free to contact us to learn more about how this decision may affect you.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Charles R. Macedo is a partner, and David P. Goldberg, Chandler E. Sturm and Devin Garrity are associates, at Amster, Rothstein &amp; Ebenstein LLP. Their practices specialize in intellectual property issues, including litigating patent, trademark, copyright and other intellectual property disputes. The authors can be reached at <a href="mailto:cmacedo@arelaw.com">cmacedo@arelaw.com</a>, <a href="mailto:dgoldberg@arelaw.com">dgoldberg@arelaw.com</a>, <a href="mailto:csturm@arelaw.com">csturm@arelaw.com</a> and <a href="mailto:dgarrity@arelaw.com">dgarrity@arelaw.com</a>.<br /><br /> </div> <div>Charles R. Macedo, David P. Goldberg, and Chandler E. Sturm of Amster, Rothstein &amp; Ebenstein LLP were counsel on an amicus brief submitted on the merits at the Supreme Court in this case on behalf of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association. The brief advocated for a case-by-case approach (which was ultimately adopted by the Court) in the determination as to whether, and to what extent, assignor estoppel applies. The brief did not take a position on whether assignor estoppel should apply based on the facts of this case.</div> Tue, 06 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/patent-law-alert-supreme-court-upholds-assignor-estoppel-doctrin/ PTAB Alert: USPTO Issues Interim Procedure Giving Director More Control Over PTAB Final Written Decisions in Accordance with Supreme Court's Arthrex Decision http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/uspto-issues-interim-procedure-giving-director-more-control-over/ <div>On June 29, 2021, the USPTO released information regarding an interim Director review process implemented in response to the Supreme Court&rsquo;s opinion in <i>United States v. Arthrex, Inc.</i>, Nos. 19-1434, 19-1452, 19-1458, 594 U.S. ____, slip op. (U.S. June 21, 2021), which held that in order for PTAB administrative patent judges (&ldquo;<b><u>APJs</u></b>&rdquo;) to be properly appointed as inferior officers, their final written decisions in <i>inter partes </i>review proceedings must be subject to review by the Director.&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</div> <div>In particular, consistent with <i>Arthrex</i>&rsquo;s dictate that &ldquo;[t]he Director &hellip; may review final PTAB decisions and, upon review, may issue decisions himself on behalf of the Board,&rdquo; slip op. at21,<span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"> the Director may now review a final decision either <i>sua sponte</i> or upon request by a party to the PTAB proceeding.<br /> <br type="_moz" /></span></div> <div><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Additional information can be found on the USPTO&rsquo;s website (</span><a href="https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/procedures/uspto-implementation-interim-director-review"><span style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/procedures/uspto-implementation-interim-director-review</span></a><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">) , which provides a general overview of the interim process as well as answers to some pertinent questions (</span><a href="https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/procedures/arthrex-qas"><span style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/procedures/arthrex-qas</span></a><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">). The USPTO is also accepting suggestions for the non-interim review process at </span><a href="mailto:Director_Review_Suggestions@uspto.gov"><span style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Director_Review_Suggestions@uspto.gov</span></a><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">. It remains to be seen to what extent these regulations will change as public comments are submitted.<br /><br type="_moz" /></span></div> <div><b><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Background</span></b></div> <div><i><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Arthrex</span></i><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"> concerned whether or not PTAB APJs exercised a level of authority consistent with their appointment as inferior officers by the Secretary of Commerce under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.<br /> <br type="_moz" /></span></div> <div><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">The Federal Circuit, in considering the question, had held that APJs were principal offers, creating a constitutional violation, which it remedied by removing the tenure provisions enjoyed by APJs, making them removeable at will by the Secretary. </span><i>Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith &amp; Nephew, Inc.</i>, 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019).</div> <div><br />The Supreme Court took a different tack, holding, with two distinct majorities patched together to form the ruling of the court, that APJs wielded authority inconsistent with the method of their appointment, and the proper remedy was to allow the Director to unilaterally review their final written decisions in <i>inter partes </i>review proceedings.<br />&nbsp;</div> <div>In response to this decision, the USPTO has released information on an interim implementation of review by the Director.<br />&nbsp;</div> <div><b><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Availability of Review</span></b></div> <div><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Under the PTAB&rsquo;s interim procedure, review of a final written decision may be initiated by the Director <i>sua sponte</i>, or by request of a party to a PTAB proceeding.<br /> <br type="_moz" /></span></div> <div><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">In the alternative, parties may request rehearing by the original PTAB panel.<br /> <br type="_moz" /></span></div> <div><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">However, if a party requests Director review in the first instance, without also requesting PTAB panel rehearing, and such review is not granted, that party waives its right to request panel rehearing.<br /> <br type="_moz" /></span></div> <div><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">In the event panel rehearing is granted, parties may request Director review of the panel&rsquo;s rehearing decision, regardless of whether or not a party originally sought review by the Director.<br /> <br type="_moz" /></span></div> <div><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Third parties may not request Director review or submit comments concerning the Director&rsquo;s review of a particular case.<br /> <br type="_moz" /></span></div> <div><b><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Timing of Review</span></b></div> <div><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">The time for filing a request for rehearing by the Director is the same as requesting rehearing by the panel. 37 C.F.R. &sect; 42.71(d) sets this time as 30 days. The USPTO has said that, as a general matter, the Director will not consider untimely requests, but may extend the deadline if a party requests such an extension before the due date of the request.<br /> <br type="_moz" /></span></div> <div><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Additionally, parties whose deadline for filing a request for rehearing had expired at the time of the <i>Arthrex</i> decision (i.e., before June 21, 2021) may request a waiver of the deadline. However, request for such a waiver must be made before the due date for filing a notice of appeal under 37 C.F.R. &sect; 90.3. This is no later than sixty-three days after the date of the final Board decision.<br /><br type="_moz" /></span></div> <div><b><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Requesting Review</span></b></div> <div><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Parties may request review by concurrently:<br /><br type="_moz" /></span></div> <div style="text-indent:-.25in;"><span style="color:#222222">(1)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: " times="" new="">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Entering a Request for Rehearing by the Director into PTAB E2E, and<br /><br type="_moz" /></span></div> <div style="text-indent:-.25in;"><span style="color:#222222">(2)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: " times="" new="">&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Submitting a notification by email to </span><a href="mailto:Director_PTABDecision_Review@uspto.gov"><span style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Director_PTABDecision_Review@uspto.gov</span></a><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"> and copying counsel for all parties to the email.<br /> <br type="_moz" /></span></div> <div><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Parties do not need to pay any fees to request review.<br /> <br type="_moz" /></span></div> <div><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">The Director may also initiate review <i>sua sponte</i>, in which event parties will be given notice and may be given an opportunity for briefing.<br /><br type="_moz" /></span></div> <div><b><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Context of Review</span></b></div> <div><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">The USPTO has not released detailed procedures. The review, however, may address any issue, including issues of fact and law, and will be de novo.<br /> <br type="_moz" /></span></div> <div><b><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Impact on Other Proceedings</span></b></div> <div><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">A timely Request for Rehearing by the Director will be considered a request for rehearing under 37 C.F.R. &sect;90.3(b) and will reset the time for appeal or civil action as set forth in that rule.<br /><br type="_moz" /></span></div> <div><b><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Additional Information</span></b></div> <div><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">For more information, visit the USPTO&rsquo;s website for an </span><a href="https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/procedures/uspto-implementation-interim-director-review?utm_campaign=subscriptioncenter&amp;utm_content=&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_name=&amp;utm_source=govdelivery&amp;utm_term="><span style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">overview</span></a><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"> and </span><a href="https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/procedures/arthrex-qas"><span style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">questions and answers</span></a><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"> concerning the interim Director review process. The USPTO is also hosting a </span><a href="https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/events/learn-about-interim-director-review-process-following-us-v-arthrex-inc"><span style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">webinar </span></a><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">on Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 10:00 am ET to provide more information. For an overview of the PTAB trial process, please read our </span><a href="https://www.arelaw.com/images/file/Understanding%20PTAB%20Trials%20Key%20Milestones%20in%20IPR%20PGR%20and%20CBM%20Proceedings%20(3-578-8846).pdf"><span style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">practical law note on key PTAB Trial Milestones.<br /><br type="_moz" /></span></a></div> <div><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Parties, as well as members of the public, may also contact </span><a href="mailto:trials@uspto.gov"><span style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">trials@uspto.gov</span></a><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"> with general or specific questions.<br /> <br type="_moz" /></span></div> <div><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Finally, the USPTO is accepting suggestions with respect to the non-interim review process at </span><a href="mailto:Director_Review_Suggestions@uspto.gov"><span style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Director_Review_Suggestions@uspto.gov</span></a><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">. Whether or not the basic framework of the process will change in response to these suggestions remains to be seen.<br /> <br type="_moz" /></span></div> <div><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">We will continue to monitor the USPTO&rsquo;s implementation of Director review and will report on new developments. In the meantime, feel free to contact us to learn more about how this decision may affect you.</span></div> <div>Charles R. Macedo is a partner, David P. Goldberg and Chandler Sturm are associates, and Thomas Hart is a law clerk at Amster, Rothstein &amp; Ebenstein LLP. Their practices specialize in intellectual property issues, including litigating copyright, trademark, patent and other intellectual property disputes. The authors can be reached at&nbsp;<a href="mailto:cmacedo@arelaw.com">cmacedo@arelaw.com</a>,&nbsp;<a href="mailto:dgoldberg@arelaw.com">dgoldberg@arelaw.com</a>,&nbsp;<a href="mailto:csturm@arelaw.com">csturm@arelaw.com</a>, and&nbsp;<a href="mailto:thart@arelaw.com">thart@arelaw.com</a>.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> Wed, 30 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/uspto-issues-interim-procedure-giving-director-more-control-over/ Charley Macedo Featured in IPWatchdog Article on Reactions to U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Arthrex http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/charley-macedo-featured-in-ipwatchdog-article-on-reactions-to-us/ Charley Macedo was <a href="https://bit.ly/3iYtDC1">featured in an IPWatchdog article</a> where leaders in the intellectual property industry provided their reactions to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Arthrex.<br /><br />As noted by IPWatchdog, yesterday the Supreme Court issued a split 5-4 decision, in which a plurality of the Court agreed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the structure of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board under the America Invents Act has resulted in Administrative Patent Judges being unconstitutionally appointed principal officers, but took a different approach than the CAFC to fixing the problem. <br /><br />Charley noted: &quot;Today, a splintered Supreme Court recognized that the PTAB APJs are and should be considered &ldquo;inferior officers&rdquo;, except to the extent that a final written decision in an IPR remains unreviewable by a principal officer. Thus, a slim majority (Roberts, Ch.J., Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett) was troubled by the inability under Section 6(c) for the Director to directly review a final written decision by the PTAB. Based on this conclusion, a different and unusual confederation of the Justices (Roberts, Ch. J., Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor, on this key last point) agreed to sever the restriction on the Director&rsquo;s review. Under today&rsquo;s holdings, the PTAB and inter partes review proceedings will continue to proceed. It will be interesting to see how the new Director, when one is appointed, takes on this role of adjudication and final review. In the meantime, the PTAB APJ saga will no doubt continue to linger.&quot;<br /><br /><a href="https://bit.ly/3iYtDC1">Read more</a>.<br /><br /> Tue, 22 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/charley-macedo-featured-in-ipwatchdog-article-on-reactions-to-us/ ARE PTAB Alert: SCOTUS Holds Appointment of PTAB APJs Unconstitutional But Remedies Situation by Giving Director More Control http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/areptab-alert-2021-06-22-scotus-holds-appointment-of-ptabs-apjs-/ On June 21, 2021, in <i>United States v. Arthrex, Inc.</i>, Chief Justice Roberts writing the opinion for the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that although the &ldquo;unreviewable authority wielded by [Administrative Patent Judges (&ldquo;<b><u>APJs</u></b>&rdquo;)] during <i>inter partes </i>review is incompatible with their appointment by the Secretary of Commerce to an inferior office&rdquo; giving the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (&ldquo;<b><u>USPTO</u></b>&rdquo;) more control over their rulings would remedy the constitutional violation. <i>United States v. Arthrex, Inc.</i>, Nos. 19-1434, 19-1452, 19-1458, 594 U.S. ____, slip op. (U.S. June 21, 2021).<br /><br /><div>Unlike typical opinions of the Court, in <i>Arthrex</i>, Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined the Chief Justice in Parts I and II of the decision to achieve the majority concluding a constitutional violation. But once the violation was found, a different majority, excluding Justice Gorsuch, but including Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, found the violation cured by precluding Section 6(c) of the Patent Act from being enforced &ldquo;to the extent that its requirements prevent the Director from reviewing final decisions rendered by APJs.&rdquo; <i>See </i>slip op. at 21.<br />&nbsp;</div> <div>Thus, collectively, although the Supreme Court found a constitutional violation based on the lack of Director review of final written decisions under Section 6(c) of the Patent Act, PTAB APJs will continue to be inferior officers who can issue final written decisions in <i>inter partes </i>review proceedings, but their decisions will now be subject to Director review. In view of the Supreme Court&rsquo;s decision, the PTAB and <i>inter partes </i>review proceedings will continue, with the added ability of the Director to review any final written decision of PTAB APJs.<br />&nbsp;</div> <div><b>Background<br /><br type="_moz" /></b></div> <div>The Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution provides that only the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, can appoint principal officers, while inferior officers can by appointed by &ldquo;the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Department.&rdquo;<br />&nbsp;</div> <div>The Secretary of Commerce appoints all members of the PTAB, including the APJs, except for the Director, who is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.<br />&nbsp;</div> <div>In an appeal to the Federal Circuit of a final written decision invalidating its patent, Arthrex argued that APJs were principal officers who must be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and that their appointment by the Secretary of Commerce was unconstitutional.<br />&nbsp;</div> <div>In October 2019, the Federal Circuit held that APJs were principal officers whose appointments were unconstitutional because neither the Secretary of Commerce nor the Director can review their decisions or remove them at will. To remedy this constitutional violation, the Federal Circuit invalidated the APJs&rsquo; tenure protections, making them removeable at will by the Secretary. <i>Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith &amp; Nephew, Inc.</i>, 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019).<br />&nbsp;</div> <div><b>Majority Opinion<br /> <br type="_moz" /></b></div> <div>Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court. Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined with respect to Parts I and II. Justice Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined with respect to Part III. Justice Breyer authored an opinion concurring with the judgment in Part III, which was joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan.</div> <div><br />The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was vacated, and the case was remanded to the Acting Director to decide whether to rehear the petition filed by Smith &amp; Nephew.<br /><br /><b>Parts I and II &ndash; Principal or Inferior Officers<br /> <br type="_moz" /></b></div> <div>The question addressed in Parts I and II was whether the nature of the responsibilities of Administrative Patent Judges (&ldquo;APJs&rdquo;) is consistent with their method of appointment in view of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.<br />&nbsp;</div> <div>&ldquo;[N]o party disputes that APJs are officers&mdash;not &lsquo;lesser functionaries&rsquo; such as employees or contractors&mdash;because they &lsquo;exercis[e] significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States.&rsquo;&rdquo; Slip op. at 8, quoting <i>Buckley v. Valeo</i>, 424 U.S. 1, 126.</div> <div><br />While the opinion noted that &ldquo;[i]n reaching this conclusion, we do not attempt to &lsquo;set forth an exclusive criterion for distinguishing between principal and inferior officers for Appointments Clause purposes&rsquo;&rdquo; slip op. at 19 (quoting <i>Edmond v. Unites States</i>,520 U.S. at 661), the Court&rsquo;s reasoning was primarily focused on the distinction that an &ldquo;inferior officer must be &lsquo;directed and supervised at some level by others who were appointed by Presidential nomination with the advice and consent of the Senate.&rsquo;&rdquo; Slip op. at 9 (quoting <i>Edmond</i>, 520 U.S. at 662-63).<br />&nbsp;</div> <div>The majority opinion concluded that review by a superior officer is absent in the case of APJs. Slip op. at 10. Although the Director has tools of administrative oversight, neither he nor any other superior executive officer can directly review decisions by APJs. Slip op. at 10.<br />&nbsp;</div> <div>&ldquo;APJs have the &lsquo;power to render a final decision on behalf of the United States&rsquo; without any such review by their nominal superior or any other principal officer in the Executive Branch&rdquo; and the only possibility of review is a petition for rehearing that only the PTAB may grant. Slip op. at 10.</div> <div>While the Director of the USPTO possesses powers of &ldquo;administrative oversight&rdquo; and &ldquo;promulgates regulations governing <i>inter partes </i>review, issues prospective guidance on patentability issues, and designates past PTAB decisions as &lsquo;precedential&rsquo; for future panels,&rdquo; he does not have the APJs&rsquo; power to issue decisions on patentability,&rdquo; which is the &ldquo;one thing that makes the APJs officers exercising &lsquo;significant authority&rsquo; in the first place.&rdquo; Slip op. at 10.&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</div> <div>Accordingly, the majority concluded in Parts I and II that the unreviewable authority wielded by APJs during <i>inter partes </i>review is incompatible with their appointment by the Secretary to an inferior office.</div> <div><b><br />Part III &ndash; Appropriate Remedy<br /><br type="_moz" /></b></div> <div>The appropriate method to resolve this violation of the Appointments Clause was addressed in Part III.</div> <div><br />The opinion concluded that Section 6(c), which provides that &ldquo;each &hellip; <i>inter partes </i>review shall be heard by at least 3 members of the [PTAB]&rdquo; and that &ldquo;only the [PTAB] may grant rehearings,&rdquo; cannot constitutionally be enforced to the extent that its requirements prevent the Director from reviewing final decisions rendered by APJs. Slip op. at 22.<br />&nbsp;</div> <div>&ldquo;We conclude that a tailored approach is the appropriate one: Section 6(c) cannot constitutionally be enforced to the extent that its requirements prevent the Director from reviewing final decisions rendered by APJs. Because Congress has vested the Director with the &lsquo;power and duties&rsquo; of the PTO, &sect;3(a)(1), the Director has the authority to provide for a means of reviewing PTAB decisions. <i>See also </i>&sect;&sect;3(a)(2)(A), 316 (a)(4). The Director accordingly may review final PTAB decisions and, upon review, may issue decisions himself on behalf of the Board. Section 6(c) otherwise remains operative as to the other members of the PTAB.&rdquo; Slip op. at 21.</div> <div><br />The opinion notes that &ldquo;this suit concerns only the Director&rsquo;s ability to supervise APJs in adjudicating petitions for <i>inter partes </i>review. [It] do[es] not address the Director&rsquo;s supervision over other types of adjudications conducted by the PTAB, such as the examination process for which the Director has claimed unilateral authority to issue a patent.&rdquo; Slip op. at 22.<br />&nbsp;</div> <div>In reaching this conclusion, Justice Gorsuch did not join the majority, as is discussed below. Instead, a new majority was formed, including Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, who disagreed with Parts I and II that there was a constitutional violation, but recognized that since the majority found such a violation, the remedy of limiting the application of Section 6(c) was appropriate, as is also discussed below.<br />&nbsp;</div> <div><b>Justice Gorsuch Concurrence and Dissent<br /><br type="_moz" /></b></div> <div>Justice Gorsuch authored an additional opinion and joined Parts I and II of the Court&rsquo;s majority opinion, but dissented from the judgment as to Part III. <i>United States v. Arthrex, Inc.</i>, Nos. 19-1434, 19-1452, 19-1458, 594 U.S. ____, slip op. (U.S. June 21, 2021) (Gorsuch, J., concurring in part, and dissenting in part).</div> <div><br />In concurring with the majority opinion in Parts I and II, Justice Gorsuch reasoned that to be an &lsquo;inferior&rsquo; officer, &ldquo;one must be both &lsquo;subordinate to an officer in the Executive Branch&rsquo; and &lsquo;under the direct control of the President&rsquo; through a &lsquo;chain of command.&rsquo;&rdquo; Slip op. at 3.&nbsp; Thus, because APJs are executive officers accountable to no one else in the Executive Branch, the current statutory arrangement breaks the required &ldquo;chain of command&rdquo; for APJs to be considered &lsquo;inferior&rsquo; officers. Slip op. at 4.</div> <div><br />However, Justice Gorsuch disagreed with the remedy found by the majority, and explained that &ldquo;[w]ithout some direction from Congress, this problem cannot be resolved as a matter of statutory interpretation.&rdquo; Slip op. at 5. Instead, Justice Gorsuch recommends that more &ldquo;traditional remedial principals should be [the] guide&rdquo; by &ldquo;identifying the constitutional violation, explaining our reasoning and &lsquo;setting aside&rsquo; the PTAB decision in this case.&rdquo; Slip op. at 6.</div> <div><b><br />Justice Breyer Concurrence and Dissent<br /><br type="_moz" /></b></div> <div>Justice Breyer authored a third opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. <i>United States v. Arthrex, Inc.</i>, Nos. 19-1434, 19-1452, 19-1458, 594 U.S. ____, slip op. at 7 (U.S. June 21, 2021) (Breyer, J., concurring in part, and dissenting in part).<br />&nbsp;</div> <div>In joining Justice Thomas&rsquo; dissenting opinion in regard to Parts I and II, Justice Breyer reasoned that the Court should instead &ldquo;interpret the Appointments Clause as granting Congress a degree of leeway to establish and empower federal officers&rdquo; and that the Court should conduct a &ldquo;functional examination of the offices and duties in question&rdquo; by taking into account &ldquo;why Congress enacted a particular statutory limitation.&rdquo; Slip op. at 2-3.</div> <div><br />However, while Justice Breyer clarified that he &ldquo;do[es] not agree with the Court&rsquo;s basic constitutional determination,&rdquo; for purposes of determining a remedy, Justice Breyer stated that he &ldquo;believe[s] that any remedy should be tailored to the constitutional violation.&rdquo; Slip op. at 7. Accordingly, because the Court&rsquo;s conclusion that the &ldquo;current statutory scheme is defective only because the APJ&rsquo;s decisions are not reviewable by the Director alone,&rdquo; Justice Breyer agreed with the Court&rsquo;s remedial holding as it addresses this specific problem. Slip op. at 7.<br />&nbsp;</div> <div><b>Justice Thomas Dissent<br /><br type="_moz" /></b></div> <div>Justice Thomas authored the final dissenting opinion, and was joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan as to Parts I and II. <i>United States v. Arthrex, Inc.</i>, Nos. 19-1434, 19-1452, 19-1458, 594 U.S. ____, slip op. at 7 (U.S. June 21, 2021) (Thomas, J., dissenting).<br />&nbsp;</div> <div>In dissenting from Parts I and II of the majority opinion, Justice Thomas commented that &ldquo;[f]or the very first time, this Court holds that Congress violated the Constitution by vesting the appointment of a federal officer in the head of a department&rdquo; and that &ldquo;[n]either our precedent nor the original understanding of the Appointments Clause requires Senate confirmation of officers inferior to not one, but <i>two </i>officers below the President.&rdquo; Slip op. at 1. After enumerating all of the Director&rsquo;s directorial and supervisory powers over APJs, Justice Thomas reasoned that such broad oversight &ldquo;ensures that administrative patent judges &lsquo;have no power to render a final decision on behalf of the United States unless permitted to do so by other Executive officers.&rsquo;&rdquo; Slip op. at 10 (quoting <i>Edmond</i>, 520 U.S. at 665). &nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</div> <div>In addition, in arguing that the Court&rsquo;s remedy in Part III is inappropriate, Justice Thomas explained that &ldquo;[i]f the Court truly believed administrative patent judges are principal officers, then the Court would need to vacate the Board&rsquo;s decision.&rdquo; Slip op. at 16. Justice Thomas reasoned that &ldquo;[i]f administrative patent judges are (or were) constitutionally deficient principal officers, then surely Arthrex is entitled to a new hearing before officers untainted by an appointments violation. But, the Court does not vacate the Board&rsquo;s decision. In fact, it expressly disavows the existence of an appointments violation.&rdquo; Slip op. at 16-17.</div> <div><b><br />Conclusion<br /><br type="_moz" /></b></div> <div>In <i>Arthrex</i>, the Court, through a series of overlapping but different majorities, has preserved the status of PTAB APJs as inferior officers, with their Title 5 protection intact, and with the ability to issue final written decisions in <i>inter partes </i>review proceedings. The biggest change, for now, is that such decisions will be subject to review by the Director, thus bringing the level of accountability to the political officers of the administration. How the USPTO will implement this change will be interesting to watch.</div> <div><br />We will continue to monitor this decision&rsquo;s impact on proceedings at the PTAB and to report on new developments. In the meantime, feel free to contact us to learn more about how this decision may affect you.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><a href="https://www.arelaw.com/professional/cmacedo/" target="_blank">Charles R. Macedo</a> is a partner, and <a href="https://www.arelaw.com/professional/dgoldberg/" target="_blank">David P. Goldberg</a> and <a href="https://www.arelaw.com/professional/csturm/" target="_blank">Chandler Sturm</a> are associates, at Amster, Rothstein &amp; Ebenstein LLP. Their practices specialize in intellectual property issues, including litigating copyright, trademark, patent and other intellectual property disputes. The authors can be reached at&nbsp;<a href="mailto:cmacedo@arelaw.com">cmacedo@arelaw.com</a>,&nbsp;<a href="mailto:dgoldberg@arelaw.com">dgoldberg@arelaw.com</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="mailto:csturm@arelaw.com">csturm@arelaw.com</a>.<br />&nbsp;</div> Charles R. Macedo, David Goldberrg and Chandler Sturm submitted an amicus brief in Arthrex on behalf of the NYIPLA at the Federal Circuit, and at the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Askeladden LLC at the petition stage and on behalf of eComp Consultants at the merits stage.<br /> Tue, 22 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/areptab-alert-2021-06-22-scotus-holds-appointment-of-ptabs-apjs-/ Event Spotlight: NYIPLA PTAB Committee and Young Lawyers Committee to Examine PTAB Trial Milestones at July 6 Meeting http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/event-spotlight-nyipla-ptab-committee-and-young-lawyers-committe/ Join the New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA) PTAB Committee and Young Lawyers Committee on July 6 to examine Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Trial Milestones.<br /><br />In this interactive presentation, PTAB Committee co-chair Charley Macedo, coordinator Chris Lisiewski, and other members of the PTAB Committee along with Young Lawyers Committee co-chair Jenna Deneault will provide a refresher on key milestones in post-grant patentability challenges at the PTAB under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). <br /><br />The program will review typical timelines and procedures at key milestones in inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR) and covered business method (CBM) patentability challenges before the PTAB. There will be a Q&amp;A session afterward. This event is free to all NYIPLA members, PTAB Committee members and Young Lawyers Committee members. Non-NYIPLA members can join for $30. 1 CLE credit will be available for attendees. To register for the event, please contact <a href="mailto:admin@nyipla.org">admin@nyipla.org</a>. Please remember to re-register for the PTAB Committee and the Young Lawyers Committee if you have not yet done so in the new year.<br /> Tue, 06 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/event-spotlight-nyipla-ptab-committee-and-young-lawyers-committe/ Charley Macedo Named a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/charley-macedo-named-a-fellow-of-the-american-bar-foundation/ Congratulations to <a href="https://bit.ly/3voPIw1">Charley Macedo</a> on being named a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation.<br /><br />Fellows comprise a global honorary society of attorneys, judges, law faculty and legal scholars whose public and private careers have demonstrated outstanding dedication to the highest principles of the legal profession and to the welfare of their communities.<br /><br />Membership in the Fellows is limited to one percent of lawyers licensed to practice in each jurisdiction. Fellows are recommended by their peers and elected by the Board of the American Bar Foundation.<br /><br /><a href="https://bit.ly/3voPIw1">Learn more about Charley and his practice</a>. Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/charley-macedo-named-a-fellow-of-the-american-bar-foundation/ NYIPLA PTAB Committee Meeting With USPTO Officials Available to Watch http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/nyipla-ptab-committee-meeting-with-uspto-officials-available-to-/ At the May 4 meeting of the of the PTAB Committee of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA), a distinguished group of USPTO officials, including Administrative Patent Judge Amanda Wieker, from the PTAB and Kimberly Weinreich and Steven Fulk from the USPTO, gave an ethics presentation on patent bar admission at the USPTO, pro hac vice admission before the PTAB and the Legal Experience and Advancement Program (LEAP).<br /><br />Partner <a href="https://www.arelaw.com/professional/cmacedo/">Charley Macedo</a> is co-chair of the NYIPLA's PTAB Committee and organizes these meetings each month.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFxCZnF_Vhc">Watch a video of the meeting</a>.&nbsp;<br /><br type="_moz" /> Mon, 24 May 2021 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/nyipla-ptab-committee-meeting-with-uspto-officials-available-to-/ Event Spotlight: Explore PTAB Successes, Outcomes and Results with Docket Navigator and the NYIPLA’s PTAB Committee http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/event-spotlight-explore-ptab-successes-outcomes-and-results-with/ Please join the New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA)&rsquo;s PTAB Committee on June 1 to review PTAB statistics provided by Docket Navigator. <br /> <br />In this interactive presentation, PTAB Committee co-chairs Charley Macedo and Ken Adamo along with coordinator Chris Lisiewski and other members will explore PTAB statistics provided by Docket Navigator, including: <br /><ul><li>Yearly analysis of PTAB successes on institutions and outcomes</li><li>Case flow results by year instituted</li><li>Outcomes at the Federal Circuit</li><li>Results on motion to amend and requests for rehearing, and more.</li></ul> <br />Amy Towell from Docket Navigator will be available to answer questions on how to customize their data for your specific requests. There will be a Q&amp;A session afterward.<br /><br /> Partner <a href="https://www.arelaw.com/professional/cmacedo/">Charley Macedo</a> is co-chair of the NYIPLA PTAB Committee.&nbsp;<br /><br />This event is free to all NYIPLA members and PTAB Committee members, and $30 for non-NYIPLA members. 1 CLE credit will be available for attendees. To register for the event, contact <a href="mailto:admin@nyipla.org">admin@nyipla.org</a>.<br /><br /> <a href="https://www.nyipla.org/nyipla/Events.asp">Learn more about events at the NYIPLA</a>.&nbsp;<br /><br type="_moz" /> Tue, 01 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/event-spotlight-explore-ptab-successes-outcomes-and-results-with/ Amster Rothstein & Ebenstein Lawyers Continue Service as New York Intellectual Property Law Association Volunteers With Key Leadership Roles http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/amster-rothstein--ebenstein-lawyers-continue-service-as-voluntee/ ARE Law is proud of our longstanding history of volunteerism with the New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA). At today&rsquo;s Annual Meeting, ARE lawyers were elected to the following leadership positions at the NYIPLA: <br /><ul><li>David Goldberg &ndash; Board Member and liaison to the Amicus Briefs Committee</li><li>Tony Lo Cicero &ndash; Co-chair, Legislative Action Committee</li><li>Charley Macedo &ndash; Co-chair, PTAB Committee</li><li>Chris Lisiewski &ndash; Co-chair, Inventor of the Year Committee</li></ul> Tue, 18 May 2021 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/amster-rothstein--ebenstein-lawyers-continue-service-as-voluntee/ Charley Macedo and David Goldberg Featured in the NYIPLA Podcast on Supreme Court's Decision in Google v. Oracle http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/charley-macedo-and-david-goldberg-featured-in-the-nyipla-podcast/ Don&rsquo;t miss <a href="https://bit.ly/3eDXI7h">episode 10 of NYIPLA&rsquo;s Podbites Series</a> with New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA) Amicus Brief Committee Co-chair <a href="https://www.arelaw.com/professional/dgoldberg/">David Goldberg</a> and PTAB Committee Co-chair <a href="http://www.arelaw.com/professional/cmacedo/">Charley Macedo</a> discussing the Supreme Court&rsquo;s decision on the long-running dispute between Google and Oracle.<br /><br /><a href="https://bit.ly/3eDXI7h">Listen to the podcast</a>. Wed, 12 May 2021 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/charley-macedo-and-david-goldberg-featured-in-the-nyipla-podcast/ ARE Patent Law Alert: Supreme Court Invites Solicitor General to File Brief on Patent Eligibility Issues in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/are-patent-law-alert-supreme-court-invites-solicitor-general-to-/ <p>On May 3, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court invited the Acting Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in American Axle &amp; Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, No. 20-891 (U.S. Supreme Court 2021).<br /> <br />In American Axle, the petition for writ of certiorari asked the U.S. Supreme Court to address the following questions: (1) what standard determines whether a patent claim is &ldquo;directed to&rdquo; a patent-ineligible concept under step 1 of Supreme Court&rsquo;s two-step framework for determining whether an invention is eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. &sect; 101; and (2) whether patent eligibility (at each step of the Supreme Court&rsquo;s two-step framework) is a question of law for the court based on the scope of the claims or a question of fact for the jury based on the state of art at the time of the patent.<br /><br />In an amicus brief dated January 25, 2021, the New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA), represented by Charles R. Macedo, David P. Goldberg and Chandler Sturm of Amster, Rothstein &amp; Ebenstein, and others, urged the Supreme Court to grant certiorari to clarify the law of patent eligibility, since, despite the plain and clear language of Section 101 of Title 35, there are conflicting interpretations of Supreme Court precedent on patent-eligible subject matter. In particular, the NYIPLA noted that the decision below was contrary to Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). <br /><br />The fact that the Supreme Court has invited the Solicitor General to file a brief here means that the Court believes this case implicates significant federal interests and that the petition is worthy of further review. Notably, this is the third time in the last three years that the Supreme Court has asked for the Solicitor General&rsquo;s views on whether it should get involved in the debate over Section 101 of Title 35 of the Patent Act.<br /><br /><br />We will continue to monitor this issue and report on developments. In the meantime, feel free to contact us to learn more.<br /><br />About the Authors<br /><br />Charles R. Macedo is a partner, and David P. Goldberg, Chandler Sturm and Christopher Lisiewski are associates at Amster, Rothstein &amp; Ebenstein LLP. Their practices specialize in intellectual property issues, including litigating patent, trademark and other intellectual property disputes. The authors can be reached at <a href="mailto:cmacedo@arelaw.com">cmacedo@arelaw.com</a>, <a href="mailto:dgoldberg@arelaw.com">dgoldberg@arelaw.com</a>, <a href="mailto:clisiewski@arelaw.com">clisiewski@arelaw.com</a> and <a href="mailto:csturm@arelaw.com">csturm@arelaw.com</a>.<br /><br /> </p> Wed, 05 May 2021 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/are-patent-law-alert-supreme-court-invites-solicitor-general-to-/ PTAB Alert: USPTO Creates Fast-Track Pilot Program for COVID-19 Appeals http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/ptab-alert-uspto-creates-fast-track-pilot-program-for-covid-19-a/ <p><small><span style="font-size: 11pt;">The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently announced a Fast-Track Pilot Program for Appeals Related to COVID-19, which allows for expediting ex parte appeals for patent applications related to COVID-19.<br type="_moz" /></span></small></p><p><small><span style="font-size: 11pt;">The program began on April 15, 2021 and allows applicants to file a petition to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to expedite resolution of such appeals. There is no fee associated with the filing of the petitions and the PTAB has set a target to resolve appeals within six months of the granting of a petition to expedite.</span></small></p><p><small><span style="font-size: 11pt;">To qualify, the appeal must involve an original utility, design or plant non-provisional application that claims a &ldquo;product or process subject to applicable FDA approval for COVID-19 use.&rdquo; That is, the claims must be directed to a product or process that is subject to FDA approval for COVID-19 use. The appeal must be an ex-parte appeal in which the briefing is complete such that the appeal is pending before the PTAB. The petition to expedite must identify the application and appeal based on application number and appeal number, respectively, and must include a certification that the appeal is related to claims for products or processes that are subject to applicable FDA approval for COVID-19 use. The USPTO has provided a fillable petition form suitable for use (PTO/SB/454), which may be filed electronically. The USPTO has limited the number of petitions that will be granted under the pilot program to 500.</span></small></p><p><small><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Together with the USPTO&rsquo;s COVID-19 Prioritized Examination Pilot Program, which relates to the same types of applications, this program will allow applicants to receive expedited examination and final resolution on COVID-19 related patents.</span></small></p><p><small><span style="font-size: 11pt;">More information is available at the&nbsp;</span></small><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><a href="https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/covid-fast-track-appeals-pilot-program"><small>USPTO website</small></a></span><small><span style="font-size: 11pt;">.</span></small></p><p><small><span style="font-size: 11pt;">For more information about other fast track appeals programs, click&nbsp;</span></small><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/patentlawyer_nyipla-ptab-insights-on-the-ex-parte-appeal-activity-6790715107958628352-gg8U"><small>here</small></a></span><small><span style="font-size: 11pt;">.</span></small></p><p><small><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Douglas A. Miro is a partner, and Keith Barkaus is a counsel at Amster, Rothstein &amp; Ebenstein LLP. Their practices specialize in intellectual property issues, including litigating copyright, trademark, patent and other intellectual property disputes. The authors can be reached at&nbsp;</span></small><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><a href="mailto:dmiro@arelaw.com"><small>dmiro@arelaw.com</small></a><small>&nbsp;and&nbsp;</small><a href="mailto:kbarkaus@arelaw.com"><small>kbarkaus@arelaw.com</small></a></span><small><span style="font-size: 11pt;">.</span></small></p> Tue, 04 May 2021 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/ptab-alert-uspto-creates-fast-track-pilot-program-for-covid-19-a/ Event Spotlight: PTO and PTAB to Return to NYIPLA PTAB Committee to Share Insights on Ethics Issues at the USPTO http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/event-spotlight-pto-and-ptab-to-return-to-nyipla-ptab-committee-/ At the <a href="https://www.nyipla.org/assnfe/ev.asp?ID=1380">May 4 meeting of the of the PTAB Committee of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association</a> (NYIPLA), a distinguished group of USPTO officials, including Administrative Patent Judge Amanda Wieker, from the PTAB and Kimberly Weinreich and Steven Fulk, from the USPTO will return for a special ethics presentation on patent bar admission at the USPTO, pro hac vice admission before the PTAB and the Legal Experience and Advancement Program (LEAP) at the PTAB. <br /><br />The presentation will include:<br /><br />USPTO Patent Bar Admission led by Kimberly Weinreich, Attorney at the Office of the Enrollment and Discipline Pro Hac Vice Admission before PTAB led by Steven Fulk, Patent Attorney, PTAB; and Legal Experience and Advancement Program (LEAP) led by Judge Amanda Wieker, Administrative Patent Judge<br /><br />There will be a Q&amp;A session afterward. <br /><br />This event is free to all NYIPLA members and PTAB Committee members, and $25.00 for non-NYIPLA members.1 Ethics CLE credit will be available for attendees. To register, please contact <a href="mailto:admin@nyipla.org">admin@nyipla.org</a>.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.arelaw.com/professional/cmacedo/" target="_blank">Charley Macedo</a> and Ken Adamo are the Co-Chairs of the NYIPLA PTAB Committee, and Rob Rando is the Board Liaison for the PTAB Committee. Thu, 06 May 2021 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/event-spotlight-pto-and-ptab-to-return-to-nyipla-ptab-committee-/