Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
U.S. Supreme Court Largely Upholds IPR Proceedings In 'Arthrex'
[Editor's Note: As this issue was going to press, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in U.S. v. Arthrex. A summary of the decision follows, with a more detailed analysis of the ruling and its implications for practitioners to follow in the August issue.]
On June 21, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in U.S. v. Arthrex, Inc., Nos. 19-1434, 19-1452, 1901458 (June 21, 2021) (slip opinion ). The April 2021 issue of The Intellectual Property Strategist covered the oral argument before the Supreme Court (see, "Say What? Are PTAB Judges Really 'Inferior' Officers?"
Case Background
In October 2019, in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the statutory scheme appointing Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) administrative patent judges (APJs) violates the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution. APJs at the PTAB render decisions on the patentability of issued patents, particularly through the commonly used adversarial IPR process. The Federal Circuit held that the APJs are "principal officers," reasoning that "[t]he lack of any presidentially-appointed officer who can review, vacate, or correct decisions by the APJs combined with limited removal power lead us to conclude … that these are principal officers." Arthrex, 941 F.3d at 1335. "As such, they must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate; because they are not, the current structure of the Board violates the Appointments Clause." Id.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.