Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
UPDATE: The Supreme Court 'Arthrex's' Decision In Action
Back in June 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in U.S. v. Arthrex, Inc., Nos. 19-1434, 19-1452, 1901458 (June 21, 2021) (slip opinion). In the decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court ruled that the statutory scheme appointing Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) administrative patent judges (APJs) to adjudicate IPRs violates the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the Court concluded that, because APJ decisions in IPR proceedings are not reviewable by a presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed officer, such determinations are not compatible with the powers of inferior officers.
The Court, in what it viewed as the narrowest possible remedy to cure the constitutional defect, declared that all IPR final decisions made by APJs must be subject to review by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) director, who is nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. (For more on that decision, see our article in the July 2021 issue of The Intellectual Property Strategist.)
Subsequently, the PTO set up an interim procedure for parties to challenge a PTAB ruling, providing the ability to seek either director review or rehearing before the three-judge PTAB panel that originally heard the case. See, https://bit.ly/3cGWgzr. Note: Parties may still choose to appeal directly to the Federal Circuit instead.
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
Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Corporate Trademark Infringement Remedy Calculation Case
The business-law issue of whether and when a corporate defendant is considered distinct from its affiliated entities emerged on December 11 at the U.S. Supreme Court, with the justices confronting whether a non-defendant’s affiliate’s revenue can be part of a judge’s calculation of the monetary remedy for the corporate defendant’s infringement of a trademark.
Navigating AI Risks: Best Practices for Compliance and Security
The most forward-thinking companies embrace AI with complete confidence because they have created governance programs that serve as guardrails for this incredible new technology. Effective governance ensures AI consistently aligns with an organization’s best interests, safeguarding against potential risks while unlocking its full potential.
What Will 2025 Bring for Legal Tech
It’s time for our annual poll of experts on what they expect 2025 to bring in legal tech, including generative AI (of course), e-discovery, and more.
AIAs: A Look At the Future of AI-Related Contracts
AI’s rapid market proliferation and regulatory expansion mirrors privacy’s, and businesses should model their contractual AI compliance on the successes of privacy law’s DPA and BAA.
The Death of SEO: How AI Is Impacting Search, PPC and Cookies
Traditional keyword strategies and ranking tactics are losing ground to a more dynamic approach in which optimizing for search now means optimizing for every platform and user interaction. This evolution is appropriately being called “Search Everywhere Optimization.” The redefined SEO reflects how AI is not just changing how people find information but also how businesses need to think about visibility in an increasingly connected digital ecosystem.